Cygnet

The productions I've seen are:

ABT - Baryshnikov's version, MacKenzie's version and Blair's version
NYCB - Martin's version & Balanchine's version
POB - Nureyev's version
Royal Ballet - Hurry's version and Dowell's version
Bolshoi - Grigorovich's version
Maryinsky - Sergeyev's version
Adventures in Motion Pictures - Bourne's version

. . . Am I the only one to find this music jarring and inappropriate to what comes earlier and what follows? What do you think about this waltzing and all that it expresses: choice of music, abrupt happy ending, lighting, etc.? How do you compare it with the musical and other choices in the versions of Act III danced most often in the West, including Ashton's and Nureyev's.

With Ashton and Nureyev's versions, (esp. Nureyev's), the tragedy is implicit,

and the dramatic points aren't obscured. Nureyev really empahsized those dramatic

points with his use of the majority of the original 1877 score. I agree with your supposition

that these two pieces were meant to be a "set up" for the happy ending. After the Revolution,

the Party bosses decreed that this ballet must have a happy ending and uplift the audience.

Belief in life after death was not "official."

'Un poco di Chopin' is listed in the original libretto notes as the 'farewell' or 'parting' pas de deux, in

tempo di mazurka. Both the Valse Bluette and Un poco di Chopin are indeed heavenly music, beautifully

orchestrated by Drigo, but they don't sound as disconsolate or as "hopeless," as the numbers from the 1877

in the same segments. Remember, these pieces are written by Tchaikovsky, but orchestrated by Drigo 'in the manner of' Tchaikovsky. I also add into this discussion the ingratiatingly charming variation for Odile in Act 2. There's no malevolence in this piece which was also inserted by Drigo. In the Fedotov/JVC cd liner notes, it states that Drigo believed that he was doing the most delicate surgery, transplanting what he thought the master would have wanted, into the pre-existing score. Compared with the original Act 4 from the 1877 score, the 1895 edition is audibly out of context with the original plot. IMO the 1895 Act 3 doesn't reconcile with the Overture, which summarizes the entire tragedy succinctly:

This music doesn't herald a happy ending. I also agree that the dual between Siegfried and Rothbart at the end is too short and dramatically implausible. For example, if all Siegfried had to do was rip off Rothbart's wing, why didn't he do this in

Act 1 Scene 2? Without the double suicide, great ballerinas who were born for the tragic ending, are hard pressed in this production to make their human restoration believable at the end. Great ballerinas can successfully pull this off; poor and fair-to-middling ballerinas can't.

Three of Bentley's criticisms made direct hits:

-- "The book reads more like a biography of a celebrity than an artist, and they are not the same thing."

-- "Kavanagh's fondness for unattributed quotations make for awkward reading. In addition to forcing readers to keep one thumb embedded in the end notes, the practice undermines her authorial voice." I used post-its in different colors instead of my thumb, but the effect was just as cumbersome. To top it off, the end notes themselves area minimal, often requiring you to turn to an entirely separate list of abbreviations to make sense of them.

-- The book cuts off at Nureyev's death and burial. Bentley points out that his family's legal disputes over the estate, the auction of his properties, and several other ongoing stories are left out. I confess that I wondered whether the printer or binder had left something out. On the other hand, a brief note desscribing the work of the Rudolf Nureyev Foundation and the Rudolf Nureyev Dance Foundation can be found on page 704.

Thanks Bart for zeroing in on these three points. For me, Kavanagh's "voice" continuously gets lost in the text, and when that happens it reads like Cliff Notes. In comparison, I think Daneman (Margot's biographer), did a better job of separating the celebrity from the artist, therefore spinning a better tale than Kavanagh. Apparently, Kavanagh simply chose not to close the circle where the story began - with his family, or deal with the distribution of his estate. If she had done so, that might have been Volume 2.

I'm placing my order asap!

'Legwarmer' wrote,

Odette... Uliana enters the stage and immediately conquers it. There is no breath left for any other thought but of her beauty. She is not a dancer who tries to imitate a swan - she is the first swan I've seen.

Lopatkina dominates the stage as Odette. She is spellbinding in live performance.

Corps? The right line is perfectly fine - the left line is not 'in line'. The overall choreography (Konstantin Surgeyev, 1950) is sometimes very Corps-unfriendly because some lines the Corps simply cannot form perfectly. Of course 15 swans can't stand exactly one right after the other, and any tendus and port de bras changes lead to the thought - 'they should have rehearsed this longer'... one Corps dancer always looked up and down when she stood in her frozen position which irritated me a lot. The arabesque hops, though, they master perfectly. Same height, same time - my eyes had a good meal with that one.

Then there's the disappointment. The Kirov apparently can put together a nice Corps with dancers of the same height, but when it comes to the Little Swans they fail brutally. The very left dancer is the smallest, the very right one (Olesia Novikova) the biggest. Their footwork is technically brilliant although their legs are of different physique. But what are their heads doing? Did their coaches sleep? What, could they have 15 Corps dancers get their arabesque to the same height, but not four swans turn their heads at the same time?

Corps 2007 at the Maryinsky is totally different from a generation ago. Under Vinogradov, in live performance, the corps was flawless. There were no wandering eyes, each dancer was the mirror image of the other both technically and artistically. There was consistency and unanimity of impulse. They inhaled and exhaled together. The inclination of their heads, everything down to the spacing of their fingers was perfect. When you get a chance and have the time, try this experiement: Compare the swan corps ranks from the Makhalina/Zelensky, Mezentseva/Zaklinsky dvds, as well as the Tchyentchikova/Zaklinsky PBS video (1986), with this new dvd. IMO there's no comparison.

Re the Little Swans casting, for the past few seasons this has been standard operating procedure. When the Maryinsky came to Orange County last year, one of the Little Swans was totally different in physical proportion to her other three sisters. Although the execution was fine, it marred the line of the dance. In Act 2 of last year's tour, one of the Prospective Brides was head and shoulders above the other contestants during the waltz. Again the line of the dance was marred.

Big Swans. Somova. A matter to be discussed for itself. This ballerina manages to not fully dance out her adagio; all the other swans lean down 'completely' and she doesn't. Expressionless, her emotions are disappointing. Her tan tears all my attention away from the other swans who are truly beautiful.

Somova: Congratulations - you've discovered the Maryinsky Ballet's Jewel in the Crown > .

Be thankful that this dvd records Uliana's performance. This could've easily been Somova's showcase as Odette/Odile, which is an entirely different story. In September she was given the first "Swan Lake" of the Maryinsky's current season, and has been given Odette/Odile over 12 times in the last year. She's also enjoyed the prestige of some important opening nights on tours as Odette/Odile > cast before both Uliana Lopatkina and Diana Vishneva.

Now there is what I had waited for... Odile. Is she dashing enough? Is she evil? Does she ridicule Odette with her imitation?

No - she doesn't. Uliana cannot quite nail what Odile is supposed to be. Is she not capable of the evil, I wonder? Her white swan imitation is too close to Odette, it doesn't have any of the witty taste to it which would spice it up and put sense into it.

Odile's fouettés are not high or clean enough, but I am very pleased with Uliana's musicality so that is perfectly fine with me.

Uliana is a thinking dancer. Her repertory is not as large or as extensive as Vishneva's or her other peers. She's very much an academic ballerina. She chooses to focus on and perfect the main classical roles: Odette/Odile, Raymonda, Lilac Fairy, Nikiya etc. and preserve Sergeyev's legacy. She knows and understands what her limitations are. For example, she's gone on record why she won't dance Aurora: She has expressed her ideas about the aesthetics and what she believes the role requires. Uliana's approach to Odile is very cerebral; it's not sensual or full of pyrotechnics. Her's is a muted charm. She's herself as Odile. She's a ballerina who knows what she can do well, and she does exactly that.

What is it with the Kirov? I recently watched the POB's Swan Lake DVD with Agnes Letestu; I disliked Letestu's interpretation of Odette, but overall, the POB Corps had a better choreography - it was more friendly because it was more easy to make it all look synchronal. Is the POB's Corps really better trained than the Kirov one? I had always, always thought that the Russians had the better Corps. Some parts are really astonishing, but overall, the POB seemed... better. I disliked the POB's costumes, too, but their whole staging was more beautiful (although Nurejev's choreography for the solos were horrible, in huge contrast to the really good Corps choreographies).

These are two different schools you're comparing here, two different traditions. One corps isn't necessarily better trained than

the other. However, one corps may have superior coaching, repetiteurs and artistic direction than the other. There are some things that are tolerated in one institution, that would never be tolerated in the other. The finished production onstage

all depends on who is at the top of the org. chart.

Anton Dolin & John Gilpin visited Olga Spessivtzeva to interview her for the "A Portrait of Giselle" documentary. Dolin reminisced about the first time they danced "Giselle" together. Here's two memorable quotes from her, (source

"A Portrait of Giselle" Kultur dvd).

Spessivtzeva to Dolin: "I don't know where(ish) you came from; I know I dance vit you."

On her friendship with Karsavina: "Beautiful lady, beautiful lady: Best dancer - best woman."

Kavanagh's "Nureyev" is full of doozies. Here's one priceless remark after he and Sizova won the Gold medal at the 1959 Vienna World Youth Festival. It was a three way tie for the Gold: Sizova & Nureyev, Makarova & Soloviev, and Maximova & Vasiliev. He sent Sizova to accept the award for both of them telling her:

"I don't need that equality." (p. 75)

I saw it this past Friday evening on PBS, Orange County, CA. It was simply

wonderful!

name='ngitanjali' date='Nov 5 2007, 10:24 PM' post='215431']

. . . I have a question. I'm not familiar, at all, with the Mariinsky ballet save what I have seen of Asylmuratova, Lopatkina, etc... would Somova have even been allowed into the corps de ballet, or would she have fit in?

Hi ngitanjali. The Maryinsky of say 1992, is totally different from the Maryinsky of 2007.

Personally, I doubt that Somova would have been accepted into the Kirov during the Soviet era.

She most likely would've been counselled to go to a folk dance troupe or the circus.

She got into the Vaganova Academy and passed all of the exams. She did what she needed

to do to get in. However, it seems she's thrown everything she (supposedly)

learned out the window, in favor of her own personal "style," which is not classical

ballet.

(I still have issues with teh acrylic nails. I didn't even wear those for my high school prom, since I thought they'd be tasteless with my dress, and Prom is the most glorified, over the top bonanza in the US. I'm not sure where fake nails fit into Bayadere, or the Corsaire, but I don't know...perhaps Ancient India had yet to be discovered secrets...)

Her nails are a dangerous hazard that apparently hasn't been, (and won't)

be addressed. Once she was asked about the length of her nails, and she shrugged it

off with indifference, saying that they were apart of her costumes. I perceive

that she wouldn't have dared say this without the full weight of the management

behind her.

. . . but, let's go back to a time when Asylmuratova, Makhalina, or Lezhina were the main ballerinas (!!!!)

When these ladies were dancing, Oleg Vinogradov was the Artistic Director. When Makhar Vaziev assumed

power, his agenda and tastes replaced the outgoing AD's agenda and tastes. This happens everywhere.

Today, we see the results of this change in direction. The fact that someone like Somova could be accepted, and worse, promoted, reflects the leadership's agenda, tastes and values. Somova is being "touted" as the prototype of 'the new Russian ballerina' - someone who is 'advancing' (:blush: ? ) and, pardon the pun, 'extending the classical canon' () .

As for your other question, ballerinas such as Lopatkina, Vishneva, Ayupova, Pavlenko,

Tarasova and Dumchenko, are representatives of the true Vaganova/Petersburg school, the

embodiment of classical purity and artistry. Of Somova's generation, (Classes of 2002 - 2004),

the young soloists who are trying to uphold this tradition are Olesya Novikova, Tatyana Tkachenko,

Yevgenya Obratzova, Victoria Tereshkina and Ekaterina Osmolkina. Of these, IMO Zhenya Obratzova

and Tatyana Tkachenko are the purest and most polished of this group. Classical purity and artistry

aren't in vogue right now; Somova is.

I pray that Lopatkina, Tereshkina and Vishneva stay healthy - especially for New York next April.

Keep this in mind: If one of them doesn't, the title role in Raymonda Act 3 will be a "go" for A. Somova.

I hate to think how watching Somova might impress a young student.

I have bad news to report: It has already begun. My friend in St. Petersburg

attended "Silenzio," Vishneva's solo evening last month. She emailed me and

told me that during the intermission, Somova herself was walking around along

with the rest of the audience in the foyer. A little girl, that my friend recognized

as a second year student, was standing next to my friend, holding her mother's hand.

The child spotted Somova, as if this were a star sighting, and excitedly

whispered to her mother, " . . . That's Somova, the lady with blonde hair!"

If the youngsters at the Academy revere her, that doesn't bode well for

the future.

Somova is being pushed down our collective throat by the Kirov mangement because they think she's exactly what we want and what we will pay to see.

And is this working with the ticket-buyers? I realize that some audiences crave extreme extensions, contortions, and possibly a bit of bizarre arm-waving, etc.. But even these were not done particularly well. It looked like parody. Who IS the audience for this? And how do the traditional audiences respond?

I'm sorry for my puzzlement, but I have not seen the Kirov live for quite a while, and I cannot square the images I saw in this clip from Rose Adagio with what I read about the company elsewhere (including Ballet Talk) and have observed on relatively recent dvds.

Are there two Kirovs, operating in parallel but non-connecting universes?

The traditional audiences, (i.e. Lopatkina, Obratzova, Pavlenko and Vishneva's fans), generally avoid the opera house when it's a Somova night. Her nights are usually first nights or mid-week, or weekends when the tourists buy up the most

expensive seats in 'orchestra.' The Czar's Box level and upper tier crowd, aren't as forgiving as the tourists. Also, they aren't as close as the tourists are to the line of fire.

Re: the Youtube tape, I stopped counting mistakes at #15 in the Rose Adage alone. Her "entrance" was !!!!. I mean, we're not talking about technical survival here. She lacks sufficient strength in her right foot for the balances, notice the persistent wobble. She is allowed to insert the Sergeyev penchees into the 1890 notation after the first set of balances, and at the end of the final promenade. Vishneva, Obratzova, Tereshkina, Gumerova, Novikova, Dumchenko - none of them take this liberty in the Reconstruction. She hits 182 degrees with every developpe and every penchee in the Adage. Her tutu hits her tiara during the diagonal balances with the King's Violinists. Mind you, this was not her debut; this was taped in January > two years after her Los Angeles debut in Fall 2005, so there's no excuse for these egregious mistakes, or this 're-dux' of the 'script.' What really bothers me is that audiences worldwide who have never experienced the true Maryinsky/Petersburg style, will see Somova, and erroneously conclude that they've seen & experienced a legitimate exponent and purveyor of the Vaganova/Petersburg School - not so.

For those of you out there who like to live dangerously, the rest of her faux Act 1 can be viewed on Mad-About-Maryinsky and Dropshots. The variation was impossible and painful to watch: Her lack of turnout is most pronounced

here; there's nowhere for her to hide - it's on display for all to see. Picture this: After she pricks her finger, the ensemble onstage is in their proper place, as the choreography dictates. She, on the other hand, realizes that King Papa and Queen Mama are standing stage right by the wings, and she is front and center in the middle of the stage. Imagine her surprise when she raises her right hand to dad - AND HE'S NOT THERE! It dawns ( ) on her that she's in the wrong spot. So, she does a very hasty, and very sloppy "grande jete" to get over to them, then she gets back into position - again (!) and proffers her hand so that his majesty can examine her "boo-boo." And through all of this Tchaikovsky soldiers on leaving her behind. Gaffes like these can't be concealed, OK?

What is the antidote for Somova? I suggest viewing any of the following: The 1983 Kolpakova/Berezhnoi, the 1989 Lezhnina/Ruzimatov, the Asylmuratova/Zaklinsky, the Sizova/Soloviev, or the Semenyaka/Fadeyechev dvds - these helped me through the withdrawals.

. . . We have a number of posters familiar with ballet in Moscow and St. Petersburg today. Is the ballet scene today anything like that which existed in the 90s? Does the claque still exist? If things are better, what has happened to bring about the changes? How is truly creative work -- and the identification and advancement of talent -- possible in such an environment?

From what I've seen, both in St. P, on tours, and from sources on site, the claques are alive and well, and there are still 'king' and 'queen' makers inside and outside the Maryinsky. Perhaps someone who is a St. P native, who knows what it was like during the Soviet era, and during the early 90s (which was a period of uncertainty for the arts in Russia), can shed even more light on this.

You ask an excellent question Bart: How can creativity and real talent thrive in this kind of atmosphere? I, for one

am gob-smacked: The inexplicable is now the norm. If one spots a talented/gifted dancer, one can wait literally forever to see them get any exposure. They will languish in the corps at worst, or be filed away for years in the coryphee or soloist ranks at best. There are a few names that come to mind, who have been 'filed away' in the lower ranks for +10 years, and, although they deserved to go forward to Principal Dancer, will end their careers without having attained that status. Whereas, others who are given excessive grace by the management are over-exposed. But, that's life - unpredictable. During the last two seasons, several promising young men and young women have left the company, hoping to find better opportunities elsewhere. I try to focus on the positive aspects, such as the great tradition of this company and school, and what they represent, and look forward to the future. Quite frankly, right now the situation is depressing.

If the management believes that Somova is the "supreme classicist" of her generation,

(Pupil of Prof. L. Safronova, Class of 2003), imagine what they must think of Tanya Tkachenko,

Olesya Novikova, Katya Osmolkina, Vicky Tereshkina and Moscow IBC Gold Medalist,

Yevgenya Obratzova. Their casting policies are crystal clear. It's all about superficial

fluff, flash and dash, literally, over pure classicism, tradition and substance.

I'll veer off topic for a second here. Consider this: If Anna Netrebko consistently

hit flat notes throughout a performance, in every performance, do you think opera audiences

in St. P and worldwide would sit still for that? I don't think so. This is what the Maryinsky

managers subject us to with Somova. It's not only the jarring contortions, it's also the lack of

musicality, artistry, and academic technique > feet that grope the floor rather than skim it,

bouncing bourrees & fouttes, slinking across the stage, and lack of turnout.

Add to all of this the management's incapability, (or lack of will - take your pick), of acknowledging

the consensus out there. Also, they show their inability to effectively prepare her before she

takes the stage. And, if she is being effectively prepared, she goes onstage and does

what she chooses. I want to believe that her coach isn't encouraging her to make sure the boxes

of her Gaynor Mindens touch her tiara for every developpe, attitude and arabesque. If Somova

had one millileter of the dance gift that the young Larissa Lezhnina, or Ludmilla Semenyaka,

or Altynai Asylmuratova had at the same age, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No Pavlenko, no Obraztsova, but Somova in Serenade, Ballet Imperial, Bayadère, Paquita, Don Quixote and Etudes ? It's getting ridiculous.

Hi Azulynn! I totally agree with you , but now it's past ridiculous - it's bizarre, like the show "Torchwood."

According my friend in St. Pete, in the last two years, when the company performs Balanchine, it's usually "miscast, under-rehearsed and way below par, as in 'Balanchine' par." OK, that opinion may be unfair because the Vaganova style and Balanchine are diametrically opposed to one another. So, the Maryinsky's approach would be different than what we're used to. But, "miscast," & "under-rehearsed" doesn't sound promising to me. IMO Vaziev had better grab some living Balanchine experts to coach this company before they roll into New York next year.

I'm very happy that Novikova, Tereshkina and Kondaurova will be given central assignments. Lopatkina's 3rd Act Raymonda is not to be missed. The Forsythe would have been genius casting for Somova's hyperextend-nastics. The thought of her in any Balanchine, particularly "Ballet Imperial," or Petipa makes my eyes > . Fortunately, she isn't cast in the title role for Raymonda Act 3, but it's a long time between now and then .

Here's my short list:

"La Bayadere:" Nikiya's Act 2 lamentation, the 1st Shade in Act 3, and Gamzatti's Act 2 variation & her Act 2 Coda

> the Italian fouttees.

"Giselle:" Everything Myrtha. Giselle's Act 2 entrance and variation. If it's the right ballerina then it is one of the most exciting moments one can experience in the theatre. Ditto that for Odette's entrance and variation. And Odile? Well, that's a speciality. Usually you get more of one than than other, or simply the same thing. But, when you

get a great Odette and Odile that's a rare happening in nature. It's something you'll never forget, and something you'll always savor. These roles separate the good ballerinas from the great ones.

"Raymonda:" Raymonda's Act 1 Entrance, variation and the Scarf dance, her act 2 variation. Also, the 1st variation after the pas classique in Act 3, and Raymonda's Clapping Dance.

>(This one doesn't count, but for character dancing: The Gypsy Girl's dance from Prokofiev's "The Stone Flower.")

Balanchine's variation for Merrill Ashley from "Ballo della Regina," & Terpsichore's variation from "Apollo."

"Paquita:" The 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th variations, and the ballerina's variation.

"Sleeping Beauty" Fairies: Miettes, Canari, Violente, Lilac, Diamond. Aurora's Act 2 variation (Sergeyev's, Ashton's & if it's done tastefully - Petipa's 1890 with the Gold Fairy music). Also, Aurora's Act 3 variation and coda combo.

"Don Q" - Kitri's entrance, castanet dance, Act 2's Dream variation, and of course Act 3's variation & the fouttes.

Manon's Act 2 variation: Beautiful, and seductive music by Massenet. >> This one is fool proof; (well theoretically).

Hi Natalia!

According to Marc Haegeman's repetroire chronological list, her Nikiya debut in the Soviet Ponomarev/Chabukiani "Bayadere" was in 2000. It doesn't give the date.

http://www.for-ballet-lovers-only.com/Dina10.html

If I'm not mistaken AA made her debut in Swan Lake while still a corphyee, while on tour in Paris. She was such a success she got promoted to Principal. (I *think* that's what happened).

But the MT is currently kind of odd, in that it has principals who rarely if ever dance (Nioradze, Ayupova, Makhalina) but haven't retired yet. Of the women principals, only Lopatkina, Vishneva, and Pavlenko dance regularly. So many of the leads are danced by the first and second soloists (Tereshkina, Novikova, Obraztsova, Osmolkina, Somova).

Altynai Asylmuratova spent five years in the corps de ballet. She was one of the last to fully

come through the Soviet system. Another great, Tatiana Terekova likewise spent five years in the

corps de ballet. Zhanna Ayupova also spent a few years in the corps. Daria Pavlenko and

Uliana Lopatkina each spent about two years in the corps, but both came up through the ranks to

Principal Dancer - Pavlenko more painstakingly. Unfortunately, this is a tradition in the Maryinsky that has gone sideways since 1994, which was the end of Vinogradov's administration.

The corps is the place where a young dancer can really learn their craft, and internalize the ballets and the roles they aspire to. It's also the place (besides the Vaganova Academy), where potential talent can be scoped and cultivated. Corps work, and a number of years of corps work used to be mandatory for all in the Maryinsky. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Here's some examples. In 1995, Vishneva skipped the corps completely. She went from her graduation performance to Kitri and Principal Dancer instantly. In 1996 Zakharova did no corps work either, and she received top billing. Volochkova was in the corps for a hot minute, then received top billing. During the previous decade, ballerinas such as Zhelonkina, Dumchenko, Tarasova, Ayupova, and Pavlenko received little exposure, and rare appearances onstage at home or on tour. There's much to be said for extensive behind the scenes nurturing, intense coaching/drilling and stage experience in supporting roles - before giving dancers center stage and the central assignment. IMO what we see now are inconsistent, and/or mediorcre performances of leading roles in the classics, that never used to be the reputation of this company.

Alina Somova's case is inexplicable in that the management sees something in her, whereas the connoiseurs do not. Her teacher was Ludmilla Safronova, one of Vaganova's last pupils. Somova has seemingly thrown everything she learned (for graduation), out the window in favor of her own

personal style. Somova is the new 'basket' into which they're putting all of their eggs. She's their new campaign; their new focus. They're putting all their energies into making her a star, putting the full weight of the Maryinsky's name and reputation behind her. And this, regardless of the fact that she's not star material. Her mistakes are legion, and yet they go unaddressed. Her Kitri debut in July was an artistic and technical disaster. True prima ballerinas are born - they can't be the management's 'construction project.'

IMO of the other first and second soloists, Tereshkina and Obratzova are the most consistent. Osmolkina is consistent but she's afraid to take authority onstage, and Novikova is a budding soubrette. In ballets like "Giselle" and "Romeo & Juliet," she working on consistency. Tatiana Tkachenko made an excellent "Raymonda" debut in January this year. But Somova? She's outranked and outgunned by all of these women - including the corps de ballet. Yet she is given opening nights on important tours, and she's booked as O/O for the first "Swan Lake" of the new season in St. P in about two weeks.

Olga Moiseyeva, Galina Mezentseva's (and Altynai's coach), said it best:

" ' . . . Mezentseva was in the corps de ballet for a very short time. She was one, no

two years before she became a great ballerina. Corps de ballet work is very important

for a young dancer. It cultivates discipline, it is the development of taste, one learns

fellowship, and learning those traditions that apart of this theatre. That is why everybody

has to go through this; even the most talented and most capable ballerina.' "

Source: dvd "Backstage at the Kirov" 1982.

Ruzimatov had a good inning. Now, the question is will Vaziev hold on to the

male PD roster as it stands, or will he remove one or two, or promote one or the other? Recently, some very promising male dancers of danseur noble material, have been voting with their feet to leave. One went to the Dutch National Ballet, another defected to the Bolshoi, and some have landed in Dresden. Sarafanov can't do it all.

It will be interesting to see how Vaziev deals this dilemma in the new season.

It will be interesting to see if Ratmansky presents his own vision for "Swan Lake," or revives the original 1895 production with the tragic ending .

The L.A. Times review of "Beauty" is in:

http://www.calendarlive.com/stage/cl-wk-ab...y?coll=cl-stage

By the way, on the 4th of July Somova will be dancing Don Q. with Lobukhin. I hope Sarafanov is OK.

The Vazievs are giving Kitri to her again?! Tomorrow?! That's less

than a week later! Poor Mikhail. As for Leonid, I doubt it. How can anyone

be "OK" after dodging nails like these and a runaway fan? Pink nail polish

is one thing, but one inch nails? That's a non-starter.

http://danse-photos.goodforum.net/viewtopi...sc&start=20

IMO both Novikova and Tkachenko are the best Kitris the Maryinsky can field at this moment.

The logical choice for Kitri last week was Tereshkina; she deserves a long overdue shot at this role.

But lately, the managers aren't into common sense. Of the previous Maryinksky generation,

Tatiana Terekhova was untouchable as Kitri.

I got an email from a friend in St. P who saw it last night. Here's just some of the highlights:

"She had the very best partner, the champion in jumping and turning, dashing Sarafanov. BTW, I took notice of their difference in height. Not everything was perfect. Firstly, she had trouble with her lifts, which are done with one hand only. Still remembering the way Cojocaru carried them through, Somova didn’t look comfortable. Perhaps her extra-long legs of hers got in the way, but I suspect that it was just nerves. She tends to “loose” her leg when dismounting from the lifts, which makes them look somewhat off balance as if she was sliding away. Perhaps spectacular Manon lifts and turns is not her thing. She had some technical difficulties with her fan-work.

Then there were the fouette turns. The toe of the working leg was way too low to maintain perfect line. Well, she tried

and did some doubles. And as one can see, just like in some photos, she takes too long to fully extend her knee. These shortcomings, however, did not mar the feeling of utter joy which her Kitri radiated with characteristic generosity. She was spectacularly beautiful no matter which costume she put on."

.

In general, she reports that the patrons on the lobby level loved it - but not the Czar's Box level or the upper tiers. You see, this just goes to show you that in today's Maryinsky, you can smile your way through a performance and not have to dance, just change costumes. Well, I guess "Giselle" is next .

Can you Elborate? Is she large?

She is at least a foot taller than he. Her arms and legs are both

extremely long. Physically, she's not in proportion to his physique, so this is not only

a mismatch, but yet another miscast. She has long acrylic fingernails

that are hazardous, and that's dangerous for Leonid (and other partners), because they

have to worry about being slashed by them. Add to all of that the fact that she is a

gymnast, devoid of port de bras, epaulement, turnout, competent technique - (never mind

professional), and a footlight flirt, and you have what may shape up to be one of the

most, uh, entertaining Kitri debuts in the Maryinsky Theatre's history.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein

I have some points of clarification to make about my perceived 'cynicism' of the June 14 NY Times

Vishneva article.

Yes, Diana is known for cancelling in places other than New York. This behavior is unique to the Met, but it is not unique elsewhere, even with her home company. For example, her bait and switch at the 11th hour with Alina Cojocaru for The Kings of Dance last year. That was a major disappointment out here, especially since there was no reason given for it, either from the producers or her handlers. As one of the Diana ticket holders, IMO Cojocaru was a poor substitute. It turned out that this was so that she could go back to Petersburg for Lacotte's "Ondine," - a ballet that she didn't follow through in either for the 2006 Maryinsky Festival. That's the second example. Eventually, "Ondine" went to Obratzova on opening night. I was there. During that time she was also ill. It was later revealed that she used that "illness" time to grease wheels for what turned out to be her Odette/Odile debut at the Bolshoi on April 28, 2006. The timeline ran together here - it was obvious.

The third example and my first experience of her 'whims:' I was in Petersburg in January 2002, and she was scheduled for "Raymonda," but opted to remain in Berlin the same night of the performance I attended because of a scheduling conflict. Daria Pavlenko made her debut because of that. I held Vishneva tickets for all three of these performances. Apart from Cojocaru's "The Lesson," (danced in slippers), the other two experiences were not in vain. In fact I judge Pavlenko and Obratzova to have been, and to be far superior to what I have seen from Vishneva to date, and what I have come to expect from her as a performer. I've witnessed her, O/O (at the Met), Giselle (at the Met), Aurora (the 1890 at the Met & Petersburg, the Sergeyev in L.A. & Petersburg), Nikiya (L.A.), and Firebird (Paris). As far as the standard classical repertory for a reputed world class Prima is concerned, I believe I've given her enough opportunities to have come to that conclusion.

If D.V.'s illness is serious and she cancels the rest of the season, it will be a major catastrophe.

Vishneva found time to give an exclusive interview, (today's NY Times). Interesting that she

doesn't mention her illness in the piece. In fact, she looks perfectly healthy. Here in L.A.

we call this a PR stunt. Perhaps she cancelled not because of illness, but capriciousness?

For those of you who are holding "Swan Lake," and "Romeo and Juliet" Vishneva tickets,

I hope she fully recovers so that you'll get your money's worth.

My six favorite productions are (in order):

1. Maryinsky's 1890 reconstruction

2. Maryinsky's 1952 Sergeyev

3. Dame Ninette de Valois/David Walker 1977 production for the Royal Ballet - the perfect frame for a STELLER generation of dancers at Covent Garden.

4. Nureyev's for POB & Nat'l Ballet of Canada

5. Perm Ballet's version. Preserves much of F. Lyuphokov's work.

6. Grigorovich's version for the Bolshoi

I didn't like Dowell's production for the Royal. I have it on good authority, (thanks for the

detailed reviews everyone ), that IF I see MacKenzie's at OCPAC next month, his version

will photo finish with Dowell's.