doug

Marian Smith's book, "Ballet and Opera in the Age of Giselle" (Princeton, 2000), is currently the most authoritative work on the original production of Giselle. It really is amazing. Marian was able to work with a repetiteur that likely was created to assist with the staging of Giselle in St. Petersburg in 1842. The rep contains all of the mimed conversations, which are very lengthy and detailed. Characters are developed much more fully than we now see. The crowd scenes were much larger too: 32 vine gatherers, 4 musicians, 24 children, 16 in the hunt, 4 pages. The choreography is referred to in the rep but only via stage directions that are included in addition to the mimed conversations.

Just a note that I feel think CORTEGE HONGROIS is an important work because of Balanchine's character choreography. Comparing Balanchine's czardas choreography to Petipa's czardas choreography, the heritage can be clearly seen but also the way in which Balanchine brings character dancing into the 20th century, in the same way he did classical dancing. There are not many clearer examples of his character work than CORTEGE HONGROIS.

It appears from the Stepanov notations that even more children were used in the classical ballets during the Imperial era in Russia. A broader age range may also have been represented - in some cases, certains girls were in pointe shoes (older?) and others were on demi (younger?) in the same scene. More boys' roles too.

Oh, yes - I forgot about the Desire Act III variation. It's very interesting and difficult. I've thought of it as a cross between the older-style man's variation, with small intriciate steps, and the later-style man's variation with just a few combinations of large bravura steps. The notated variation was danced by Sergei Legat. It seems impossible, therefore, to know what Pavel Gerdt originally danced. This description is rough (I've not taken the time to really work though it): The first combination includes right foot tendu derriere croise, tombe, temps leve, degage right foot, pas de bourree to coupe right foot back, assemble, sissonne battu ouverte to long attitude croise - 4 times. Second combination: glissade left, entrechat cinq, single tour to the left landing left foot coupe front, glissade, 4 sissonne battu ferme - 2 times. Third combination: double tour, jete forward, a sort of hop to coupe right foot front, assemble - 3 times. Fourth combination: jete (battu?) to the right landing coupe left foot back, temps leve en coupe, assemble - 2 times. Fifth combination: 9 entrechat six. Sixth combination: appears to be a choice of entrechat sept OR coupe jete (seems to be like a barrel turn) - 7 times. Seventh combination: 12 brise vole [not kidding]. Eighth combination: fifth position, degage to second position, quadruple pirouette. The Kirov kept Konstantin Sergejev's variation. An explanation was given but I can't remember what it was. The notated variation is very difficult but I would like to see it. Thanks to Olivier, who helped work some of this out with me months ago. [ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: doug ]

PS: I should also add, in addition to all the things I posted that I thought weren't based on the notations, that I think they did a really good job on Beauty. No one had tried to revive a full-length to this degree. I think the Prologue is the biggest triumph, although I might question the way someof the mime was handled. Finally dealing with the fact that the Konstantin Sergejev Prologue had very little to do with Petipa, after decades of standing by its "authenticity", was a huge step in itself - BRAVO!

This is a multi-faceted question, of course Let me say first that I like the Kirov reconstruction. I like the look - the sets and the costumes (I love the colors and the Victorian sense of it). Choreographically, it's hard to nail everything down. The Kirov was able to draw on a lot of different sources, so there were many choices. Basing my info on the Stepanov notations (which were mostly made by Nikolai Sergejev and therefore often sketchy), I can say that the Lilac Fairy variation is not either of those that is notated, although the Kirov states that it is Marie Petipa's - biggest problem here are the grand jetes at the beginning of the variation: they're just not in the notation. I'm not sure where they got the cavaliers' steps in the Prologue because they are notated (only ground plans are given), but I like the steps they dance. In Act I, the Waltz is great, but then they've always kept that version in their rep, as far as I know. It's a very good example of a Petipa massed dance. In Aurora's Act I variation, before the final set of pirouettes in the middle section, they did not reinsert the precipites, and I don't know why. The notation of this variation was even published (1899) and the Royal has had this step all along, too. In the big picture, though, I guess it's minor. In Act II, I'm not sure about the court dance ... more on that if anyone wants to know. The Vision adagio is sketchy in the notations, but again the Kirov had other sources to go to. In Act III, the Bluebird pas de deux is problematic. With N. Segejev it's often hard to fit the steps to the music (for example, he sometimes notated waltes in 2/4 rather than 3/4 - something you've got to get used to with him ...). With the Bluebird pas, the problems come in Florine's variation - waiting two beats too long to begin the second combination - and mostly in the Coda, where Florine's entrance is performed at half speed, therefore forcing the opening of a cut in the music to accommodate the rest of the choreography. However, the additional music ends up being too long, requiring some improvisation before the final diagonal. So that pas should be revisited. The grand pas omits the mime statements that occur at two different points during the adagio. That's a quick summary - happy to give my opinion on any other points or to elaborate further. The Kirov is now going to reconstruct Bayadere in the 1877 version. The notations for that are from 1900, and not by Sergejev. They are very detailed. Bayadere is also from a different period in Petipa's ouevre - a completely different animal than Beauty and a much larger reconstruciton project because of the paucity of Imperial-era sources outside of the notations and the Kirov's own archives.

I saw Houston's production in the mid-1980s, PNB's production last year that they bought from ENB, and the Kirov's new/old production in New York and London. And a bunch on video.

PNB performed the finale of STARS AND STRIPES last night at the end of their gala program. Another work was to end the propgram but the dancers requested STARS, and Francia Russell staged it for them last week. My impression was that it came over as very sincere and was appreciated by the audience.

Just some initial thoughts. I would venture a guess that directors in the US, where most dance organizations don't have much of an established tradition or those that do haven't had it for long, will do what they want to do, i.e., what they specialize in or what they are good at (in someone's opinion, possibly their own!). This would mean that a company like Oakland will change at the whim of a new director. Is "artistic director" now a trade or skill such as a "computer programer" or "piano professor"? Does the resume go out to all possible job opportunities, despite the nature of the dance organizations? The difference would be that the computer programer has a very specific job to fill, as, likely, does the piano professor at a university, while the artistic director would have the freedom to completely change the face of the organization for whom he/she went to work. Should there then be a training course for artistic directors? Or are artistic directors becoming more like executive directors or arts administrators? Again, just initial thoughts.

OK, but I don't know that I'm equipped to respond. I'm a born-and-bred Northwesterner. Ms. Brown seems to imply the West coasters are more laid back than East coasters dance-wise. I can't say if that is true or not but can comment on my fairly limited live ballet-watching experience. PNB is my main ballet experience on the West Coast. PNB has been described as more demure than other "Balanchine companies" and I have always felt that is because their interpretation of Balanchine ballets is based on versions and style from the 50s and 60s. However, when I saw THE FOUR TEMPERAMENTS at NYCB last year, I was struck by how bland it seemed compared to what I was used to in Seattle. Perhaps lack of exposure to West coast-based dance by others in the country has led to assumptions? [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: doug ]

PNB has postponed the gala performance for Patricia Barker which was to have been tonight at 7pm. PNB's conductor, Stewart Kershaw, is trying to get to California to conduct ABT's GISELLE. ABT's conductor is still in New York. Best wishes to everyone.

ddianne was at NYCB for the creation of SYMPHONY IN 3 MOVEMENTS. I'll try and get her to post . . .

Yes, rg, I'd like to see the Blair. Thanks for the info - I'll try and check it out.

rg, I don't have the Stepanov SWAN LAKE on hand, but Wiley offers a translation of the prose given in the notations on pp. 262-3 of TCHAIKOVSKY'S BALLETS: Prince: I beg you not to go away. I beg you. I beg you. Odette: I am afraid of you. Prince: Why? Odette: You will kill me with your crossbow. Prince: I will not shoot you, but will protect you. [she bows to him, then evades him, etc.] Prince: What are you doing here? Odette: I am the queen of the swans. Prince: I bow to you, but why are you a swan? Odette: Look there. There is a lake. My mother cried and cried. An evil magician turned me into a swan, but if someone falls in love with me and marries me, then I am saved and will not be a swan. Prince: I love you and will marry you, but show me where this genie is. Odette: He is there. Prince: I will kill him. The mime is written in prose using the characteristic short phrases that suggest a fairly literal prose 'translation' of what was actually mimed, as opposed to what might be printed in the libretto.

Thanks, Richard, for all your comments and information. I agree completely that Tchaikovsky was thinking far ahead of most composers (and choreographers) of his time and he would have benefited from a like-minded collaborator. While I don't like the Drigo orchestrations, at least we know that he took the job very seriously. In his memoirs he stated that he was given the very ungrateful task of rearranging and reorchestrating parts of SWAN LAKE and tried his best to emulate the great composer, Tchaikovsky. Nevertheless, the 'salon' quality of his own orchestrations is very apparent, particularly in the interpolated variation for Odile in Act III. I also agree that the Dance of the Little Swans in Act IV has just the right melancholy flavor, much more so than the interpolated Valse Bluette. Re: Siegfried - it should be noted that he did not have a variation in Act I in the 1895 staging. In 1877, he appears to have danced the pas de deux that in 1895 would become the Black Swan pas de deux in Act III. So, all Siegfried solos in Act I of any 20th-century productions are further interpolations themselves and not part of Tchaikovsky's original conception.

This is a little rambling, but: the aesthetic of what is considered 'serious' in full-length ballets and what is acceptable on stage (mime, melodrama, etc.) has obviously changed drastically from the Victorian times. I think this is another reason why Act IV is so difficult to bring off. The music is also very powerful, so powerful that it was toned down significantly, in my opinion, by the 1895 revivers through cuts and omissions. The 1895 version included mimed conversation and a pas de deux that was really a pas d'action, in which the lovers conversed about the situation and brought some sense of closure to it. There followed a final action scene in which the lovers commited suicide and Rothbart was destroyed; this is similar, isn't it, to the end of GOTTERDAMERUNG, with the characters dying or committing suicide? The singing stops early on and the music continues during the action scenes. Same in SWAN LAKE - the dancing stops, but the action continues. This ending is still acceptable in the GOTTERDAMERUNG. Is it unacceptable in SWAN LAKE or ballet in general? Or is it the melodrama that we don't want to see? I'm not sure of the answers, but the larger question may be whether tastes have changed so much that 19th century ballets can no longer be presented as intended by their creators? SWAN LAKE Act IV is a very good example of the difficulties that changing tastes present.

There is very little case law on this subject, as far as I know. In 1996 I wrote my law school paper on the copyright validity of Balanchine's derivative ballets, i.e., the Petipa and Ivanov (etc.) ballets that he staged during his career over which the Balanchine Trust now asserts copyright. The only case at the time was the Trust's case re use of photos of Balanchine's NUTCRACKER in a book about the ballet. Because there is little case law, the standards have not been set with any clarity, although the Balanchine Trust case suggests ways in which standards could be set. I found this opinion to be pretty convincing and fair, with the court appearing to respect the delicacies of preserving choreography and acknowledging the difficulties of asserting choreographic copyright, even in theoretical form.

Not very related to ballet, but I'm involved in performance of Renaissance polyphony (choral music). Mostly 16th century - composed like Josquin, Palestrina, Tallis, Byrd, etc.

Re: GISELLE -- Alexandra, I don't know much more than you about Petipa's additions. It's hard to pin them down in detail because so little is known about the choreography of the original GISELLE. Marian Smith's book about ballet, opera and GISELLE throws the doors open re the action and mime of the Parisian GISELLE of the 1840s. We hope to look closely at the Stepanov notations of the Petersburg production (altho the notes were made around the turn of the century) in light of Marian's new findings and see what can be deduced about choreographic changes/additions.

I can't remember if I've posted this or not, but what do you think of child swans in Act II? They were part of the 1895 production and the Royal used them for a while when their current production premiered. According to the Stepanov notations, they run on after Odette at some point and also dance in the big waltz with 24 corps swans, 4 little swans and 4 big swans. I suppose they would function like the students in MOZARTIANA, i.e., as little people, rather than as cute kids. [ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: doug ]

I'd really like to see the David Blair staging of Act IV. Act IV seems always to have been a problem: the revivers in 1895 spent a lot of time trying to deal with it and make it work. I don't like the musical deletions and interpolations they made. I love the melancholy Dance of the Little Swans that was cut. I prefer the sort of ending when Siegfried is left alone and Odette is doomed to be a swan (I know not everyone likes it this way); I feel it matches the music - the very ambiguous ending on a unison 'B' in the orchestra.

Thanks, Sneds. I don't imagine it's any easier/more difficult for a City Ballet dancer to get permission from the GB Trust to perform works at galas than for a dancer from any other company, so long as they've been taught/coached the work by someone the Trust approves of. I assume Carrie Imler danced the Corsaire variation she learned from Yuri Fateev (he is a Kirov ballet master - former soloist too - in charge of the Kirov's Balanchine rep) in Seattle. He staged the pas de deux (or pas de trois, rather, in the Kirov version) from Corsaire for PNB last season. [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: doug ]

Sneds, what did Carrie Imler dance?

Mussell, the BBC Orchestra recorded the music for the PNB film but it's a little too long to fit onto one CD, so I it hasn't been released at this point. I'm not aware of any other recording of the music as used in the Balanchine ballet.

I called up ddianne. The Wedding March segues into the divert, which is the string symphony, unadulterated, although not played complete (Symphony No. 9 in C, first movement and the first and last sections of the second movement - third movement was deleted almost immediately after the premiere). When the court couples come back on, the music segues into the Son and Stranger overture, which is for larger orchestra.