Cygnet

Emploi is always evolving, or rather the interpretation of it, is. And, one might add, there seems to be a rather 'flexible' interpretation of it at the Mariinsky at this moment.

There is another point to the issue, I think, which is the lack of lasting partnerships. Dancers at the Mariinsky are sometimes complaining that they are continually coupled with another partner, leaving them very little chance to grow accustomed to each other. Do we still need these partnerships, or is that something which (along with emploi) belongs to the past? What do others think?

That said, Sarafanov and Pavlenko have been dancing together before ("Giselle", "La Bayadère" Shades Act), but because of stature and temperament, it didn't really work well.

If they have multiple partners, I wouldn't think that's good. But if you are

a versatile dancer and flexible, as well as easy to work with (reputation vs. ego), you should be able to dance with anyone. Both dancers have to be on the same level technically. Then they can build a cohesive, narrative, joint interpretation. Great partnerships are like cosmic anomalies: They're rare. Here's my list: Maximova & Vasiliev, Fonteyn & Nureyev, Sibley & Dowell, Kain & Augustyn, Fracci & Bruhn, Farrell & Martins, McBride/Kent & Villela, Kirkland

& Baryshnikov, Makarova & Nagy, Plisetskaya & N. Fadeyachev, Semenyaka &

Mukhamedov/A. Fadeyechev, Asylmuratova & Zaklinsky/Ruzimatov/Mukhamedov, Ulanova/Dudinskaya & Sergueyev.

When I go to see a performance I want to feel it; I want to be moved. IMO I think the audience still wants to see the romance, the passion, two artists growing together. When the audience finds the 'it' couple, it makes a performance real rather than just steps, or a fairy story/fantasy. Its very satisfying. Who

wants to go to see "Romeo & Juliet" or "Giselle" and not be moved? I think the 'it' partnership now is Cojocaru & Kobborg at Covent Garden. But British critics are complaining "where's Rojo's partner?" :rolleyes: Its just a question of being in the right place, at the right time.

Sarafanov is scheduled to dance "Swan Lake" with Pavlenko on February 19. Okay. Sarafanov is an excellent dancer, and still quite young. This match is questionable in terms of artistic temperament, not virtuosity. I know casting is subject to change, but I can't help wondering: How will his Siegfried react to her intense Odette/Odile? Based on the reviews from the Kennedy Center season he was overwhelmed opposite Sologub's Odette/Odile, but opposite her Masha in "Nutcracker" he was fantastic. I picture him as an ideal Desire, Franz or Colas. I saw his Solor vs. Nioradze's Nikiya and that was a weak match. Is he being forced into the wrong emploi? Is he miscast in danseur noble roles? Maybe the concept "emploi" is irrelevant nowadays. I hope he has his airbags ready, and is well prepared for the next installment of Pavlenko's evolving portrayal. Well Marc, like you said, "one never knows."

Aurora to me represents light and hope in a world of dispair and darkness. Her first variation in Act 1 should show how enthusiastic and full of life she is. How she want's to embrace the whole world. The vision scenes in Act 2 should represent her as a sort of idealized version of true love and beauty. In Act 3 she should show how that idealized version of true love can grow into a mature and enduring love that will last through the ages.

I've always liked Irina Kolpakova as Aurora. She seems like such a warm and pure princess. Certainly deserving of all of the gifts the Fairies bestow upon her in the Prologue. The video of her dancing Aurora I saw was I believe made in the late 1970's or early 1980's. She must have been in her forties. But she looks as dewy and youthful as a teenager. Something I think Fonteyn was able to convey also.

There are two Aurora's I've never seen, much to my regret. Antoinette Sibley and Ekaterina Maximova. Perhaps someone has seen either one dance it?

Hi Perky, and Happy New Year to all!

I didn't see Sibley's except for the short exerpt in the movie "The Turning Point"

She seemed very regal in the opening developpe of the final ppd. I did see

several snippets of Maximova's Aurora on the "Stars of the Bolshoi" and another

Bolshoi Kultur tape (can't remember the title). The former tape was the complete

Act 3 ppd with her husband Vasiliev: Perfect and very romantic. The other tape

was a gala tape honoring Asaf Messerer in 1981 at the Bolshoi Theatre. She was

in her mid forties. She and other stars of the Bolshoi were in practice clothes on

stage. They gave an open class for the audience with the orchestra, and each

of the stars danced a variation from the repertroire. Maximova danced Aurora's

Act 3 solo. Her's was a very Russian character interpretation of the solo. I wish

I would have seen Sibley and Maximova (w/Vasiliev) in the entire work on tape

or IRL.

Another great Aurora was Ludmilla Semenyaka. I've seen her Rose Adagio and

Act 3 ppd with Alexei Faydeychev on her own tape "Bolshoi Ballerina - magnificent and spontaneous! Fonteyn was good but I agree with you: Fonteyn and no one

could ever compare with Irina Alexandrovna Kolpakova. I have the Kirov tape

from 1983 - she was 50. I can only imagine what she was like when she was in her

20s and 30s!. Her feet were completely flawless. She was flawless. She coached

Lezhnina when she started out, and she was greatly influenced by her coach.

Lezhnina is also exemplary. Asylmuratova was also excellent in the mid 90s.

Current Auroras: IMO Vishneva is too "experienced" for the role of Aurora. Also,

her interpretation is inconsistent. Her pyrotechnic approach is not suited for this

role (at least in the Kirov's reconstruction of 1890 production). She does not seem refined (behave like a King's daughter). Her characterization is that of a princess

who is slightly spoiled. Zakharova's Aurora tends to look glumly prosaic in Act 2

but she doesn't tell the story - her approach is to be correct but introverted.

I saw Vinogradov's "Swan Lake" too. It premiered in Los Angeles in May 1992. Makhalina and Zaklinsky danced. The scenery was very gothic. I'll never forget what Martin Bernheimer said in his review - that the ballroom scene for Act 2, ". . . would cause guilded feelings in King Ludwig of Neuwanstein." The scenery was very heavy and covered in gold. Act 1 scene 1 was in pale pink, but the scheme looked alot like the scenery and costumes that were in the Yevteyeva/Markovsky film from 1970. Act 1 Scene 2 had a chapel ruin on stage and was equally dark in style - everything awash in blue moonliight. He didn't change Act 1 Scene 2's choreography. The choreography for the Act 2 was the same too. In Act 3 there was (IMO) an inferior opening and Dance of the Swans to the Valse Brillante. He did away with the farewell pas de deux to "Un Poco di Chopin" and replaced this music with the music from the 1877 score that accompanies Odile's, Siegfried's and Rothbart's entrance pas de trois in the Grigorovich production. After Rothbart gets his wing torn off, he dies. Siegfried? I don't remember: I think he either died or left the lake. (Ari do you remember?) At the end, the swans, repeat their first entrance in Act 1 Scene 2 in reverse and leave the stage, and Odette follows them the same way. Then curtain. I agree with Ari it was decent and it was a different way of looking at the work. But,

IMO it doesn't compare to the Sergeyev version at all. I believe the Kirov should look into reconstructing the original 1895 "Swan Lake," - ideally with the 1877 music for the apotheose - uncut. The music just begs for the tragic ending.

Happy New Year everyone!!!

I see your points Marc. Perhaps Gergiev should loosen the reins for Vaziev

to do what needs to be done for the company. Vaziev needs more freedom, and

Gergiev needs to give this to him. Gergiev probably considers the ballet company a poor stepchild to the opera - his baby. I didn't consider that they should digest what they have already before taking on more stuff - of course, this is logical. Also, you're right, 'iconoclastic' is the wrong word. I'm comparing Zakharova with Volochkova artistically; IMO I think of them as non-conformists. Zakharova seems determined to distort line and style with her hyperextensions and introverted approach to the classics. Whereas, with Volochkova I base my verdict on the first hand opinions of someone who would know best her strengths and weaknesses - Ekaterina Maximova her (former?) coach. (Please see Bolshoi threads on 'Volochkova' et al.).

Happy Holidays to all!

Hi! I used to be KBfan. Thanks Alexandra for your help getting me back online!

The Kirov is concluding its Japanese tour tonight, and will be in Washington DC

next week through New Year's. The company has been on the road since June.

That's just too much. The company is exhausted. When they brought "Les Noces," "Etudes" and "Rite of Spring" to London, who could expect that they would turn in exemplary performances with minimal preparation and rehearsal? That's unrealistic. What is expected is competence and professionalism for the prices that the audience pays.

Vaziev is not a choreographer nor a good administrator, and this is the problem.

Y. Grigorovich in the 50s & 60s, and O. Vinogradov were at least choreographers. There are similarities between Grigorovich and Vinogradov: They were

both stage producers more than composers of steps, and they were autocrats. Their choreography illustrated rather than interpreted the music. A great choreographer interprets the music building on the old language, a new dialect of steps. Balanchine and Ashton did this. They created steps.

Also, when you divide the choice roles of the classical repertory between two ballerinas, as Vaziev has done, there's bound to be friction backstage. IMO I don't think Zakharova is a big loss to the Kirov stylistically or artistically. She's better

suited to the Bolshoi with her iconoclastic stage persona. She easily takes Volochkova's place & Vishneva would be perfect for NYCB. IMO, what Gergiev needs to do now is aggresively court Boris Eifman, not to leave his company, but to come and assist, as well as others such as Forsythe, Bourne and Eks, to come and create. Gergiev should open the doors of the Maryinsky with an open invitation to the best choreographers in Europe to come and work. Gergiev can showcase NEW works during the Maryinsky festival more agressively encouraging choreographic competions, etc. Ratmansky is a regretable loss, but Eifman is at least his equal.