doug

Just a few random comments: Whether one agrees with Joan A. or not, I believe she does address the big-picture issues. That said, she balances her arguments with specific examples, given her space limitations in the New Yorker. I suppose the same issues keep coming up because she, among other writers, feel they are not being addressed. I think it is possible to be a great fan of the company and like the dancers one is seeing and still appreciate the viewpoint of a critic who wants to see changes in the way the company functions. I would say this is possible just about everywhere in the dance world. It's no big surprise that City Ballet puts ballets on without a lot of rehearsal. They have a huge rep and only so many dancers and hours in which to prepare. One of the issues seems to be how that time is used and how those dancers are deployed, from class (do they still do enough slow tendus) to rehearsals to coaching to casting. I, for one, appreciate all the view points. An anology: in British music, in which I have been somewhat involved for the past ten years or so, there exists an active pool of performers/writers/scholars/enthusiasts, many of whom have voiced their opinion in Gramophone magazine. This ongoing exchange (reviews sparking new research that results in new musical editions and recordings, producing more reviews and criticism) has generally been very healthy for the state of music making and music research in London and beyond.

I don't have Roland John Wiley's A Century of Russian Ballet at hand, but Pavillon is the last libretto included in the book. It premiered in Russia and maybe parts of it were kept in rep in the Company or at least in the School during Danilova's days.

The video documentary about Alexandra Danilova, Reflections of a Dancer, includes rehearsal clips of her staging of excerpts of Pavillon d'Armide for SAB. You could watch the Workshop performance from whatever that year was at the NYPL. One of the variations is a Soviet Paquita standard and is given complete in the documentary. So interesting to see Danilova's version -- faster and more fleet -- compared to the Soviet version - slower and more technical. Really demonstrates one of the major differences between Imperial-era choreography and Soviet-era revisions in a nutshell.

I haven't seen this position of the arms notated in the Stepanov notations.

Thanks, MakarovaFan. I second your recommendation. Dutoit and Montreal have brilliant recordings of Impressionist composers and also of Stravinsky and Tchaikovsky scores. I always check first to see if they have put out a recording of any particular ballet music I am interested in hearing.

I've been trying to determine the source for the ABT staging in the early 1980s. It doesn't bear resemblance to the Kirov versions I have seen. The television broadcast credits a stager but I forget at the moment who it was. The notated version is for two ballerinas, 6 demi women, 12 korifeiki (between corps and coryphee, I believe), 12 corps de ballet couples, 12 little girls and 12 little boys. The props include 36 garlands, 12 baskets of flowers and 6 flowers for the demis. As far as the relationship between the notated version and the Kirov version, I believe the only similarities are the use of 6 women at the opening of the piece (though the steps are completely different), the support of the ballerina by the demis at the beginning of the adagio (again, different steps) and the diagonal grouping of the dancers in the adagio (again, different steps).

I'm going, too, and am excited. I'll report.

Francia Russell was speaking recently about working with Balanchine. She said when rehearsals were going slowly or choreography was not flowing, Balanchine would start asking whether it was time for coffee and then launch into an enthusiastic discussion of Wonder Woman.

The Act III mazurka (from Glazunov's Scenes de ballet) was apparently added by Petipa for the first performances of the ballet in 1898. It is referenced in the opening night program and is also included in the Harvard Theatre Collection materials for Raymonda. I've found many of the variations in the Grigorovich version to be very close to what is notated for Raymonda (circa early 1900s). As with most Soviet-era versions of 19th-century ballets, some choreography bears close resemble to what we can know about the earliest versions and other choreography is new or very revised.

I'd like to add that much of the Petipa, et al, choreography that I have worked on from Stepanov notation looks like it could be by Bournonville, meaning it is derived from the 19th-century French style. The Danes have kept the old French features much more than the Russians have (Vaganova style changed many features, while retaining others). American neoclassical ballet (Balanchine, etc.) has some features of the old style but, of course, also has many differences (and in other ways than Vaganova is different). When I saw the RDB dance Bournonville in 2000 (those were my first live performances of Bournonville danced by RDB, and I know there were complaints from those knowing much more than I ...), I was constantly reminded of the dances I worked on from Stepanov notation.

Francia Russell staged the pas de trois in Act I. The choreography is said to be "traditional" and not by Kent Stowell. I'll try and find out who wears apricot in the waltz. The Act III national dances are the same as always, just new costumes. Act I was substantially rechoreographed this time around. The Jester was always in Act III, but is now also in Act I. No more Benno. Wolfgang is a young man. 24 swans now rather than 18, as in the past. The Psant Girl used to dance the Act I Pas d'action, but now that is given over to Wolfgang and the female courtiers. In fact, no more peasants - everyone's a courtier. I won't see the production until next week ...

I don't know the answer to that question, John-Michael, but it certainly is a very intriguing idea.

I'd be interested in a description of Canfield's Nutcracker, if anyone would like to post that here.

I don't have anything specific. You might look at Ann Hutchinson Guest's publication with with notation for the Pas de Six and accompanying essays. She has revived the work from St. Leon's own notations.

Yes, the waltz variation that Raymonda dances in the vision scene was interpolated into the 1898 premiere of Raymonda. The music is indeed from Glazunov's Scenes de ballet and was arranged into a short variation. In the Raymonda piano score at the Harvard Theatre Collection, the two-violin rehearsal repetiteur of this added variation is inserted as the third variation. So, Petipa never choreographed the third variation Glazunov wrote for that scene, but Balanchine choreographed it for Raymonda Variations. The Mazurka in Act III was also interpolated from Scenes de ballet.

Thanks, Rodney - really good points. And I will look at the Paquita discussion, as well.

Re: Paquita. I've never seen grand fouettes en tournant in the Stepanov notations of any female variation, including any from Paquita. I've always thought this sort of step, pedagogical to my mind in the way it is used here, came from the developments in the Vaganova school rather than from Petipa or anyone of his era. (A startling example of Soivet-era addition to Imperial-era choreography can be seen in the Tcherepnin variation that is danced in Paquita but is from Fokine's Pavillon d'Armide: Danilova can be seen teaching it on her bio video; an SAB student dances the entire variation. Compare that to the Kirov version and one can see numerous added steps and hear a MUCH-slowed tempo - nearly a totally different variation and extremely anemic, in my opinion.) That said, the fact that Simon worked in Moscow doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of Petipa choreographing to his music, but in the case of the grand fouettes, I would have to doubt it was Petipa or Gorsky, et al. I've also never seen the amount of repetition of a step such as that in the notations (Aurora does 14 ronds de jambe in her Act I variation, but that's a rare exception as well as an easier step than the grand fouette). And *that* said, I could be completely wrong in my judgments here. The St. Petersburg Paquita of the turn of the century had 5 female variations, at least one of them to music that is no longer used. Paquita has become a real grab bag and one of those divertissements that has completely clouded Petipa's contributions. I would not rely on the authenticity of any variation I see danced by Russian companies today in productions that passed through the Soviet era. Rodney, let me know if I've completely misread you!

I'm interested.

Alymer, thank you so much for your detailed comments about the Shades scene. I appreciate knowing part what was danced in the coda. I could kick myself for not getting to New York to see it when it played there. Glad you enjoyed it.

Good point, Mel!

Are you serious, Mel?!

To my knowledge, Petipa's Cinderella was not notated. At least, it is not part of the Sergeev Collection at Harvard. Didn't Legnani introduce the 32 fouettes in Cinderella in 1894?

Maybe Raymonda was in some guardianship sort of arrangement prior to marriage? Just a shot in the dark ... But it does appear from the original scenario that the castle is hers. Nevertheless, she still takes guidance from Aunt Sybille.

According to the list of characters in the affiche of the first performance, Clemence and Henriette are "girlfriends of Raymonda." In the libretto, they are referred to as Raymonda's "closest friends." Raymonda herself is the "Countess of Doris," and her aunt, the Countess Sybille, is a "canoness."

Hasn't Nissinen been at Boston a year already?