Catherine

Will do!

Thanks Alexandra - it sounds like a worthwhile read. But also like a thorough compendium is still missing. THat is what so suprised me when I finally hit the library in St. Petersburg -- all these articles that Americans (or Europeans) have never seen translated. Just a wealth of information, truly. And why? The wall has been down for more than a decade now, and even under the Communist regime people did enter/exit the country. A visa is a matter of money at this point, nothing more. It just surprises me that this sort of thing hasn't already been covered several times over. Thanks perky. That is an era of great interest to me as well! :-)

Alexandra, I think you're right, I don't think it is comprehensive. I just found this on Amazon, which was apparently published in June of this year in its first paperback version: Russian Ballet Master: the Memoirs of Marius Petipa by Marius Petipa, Lillian Moore, and Helen Whitaker (Paperback - Jun 22, 2009) http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Ballet-Maste...5474&sr=8-1. I've never heard of Whitaker before, so I have no idea about the quality of the translation. I'm curious about this now as well: you would think that by this time we would have LONG ago had a full English edition of his memoirs or diaries or even a thorough biography in English... If there isn't a source out there, I'm willing to do the work and get it done :-)....

Hmmm... Interesting. The only thing I've found related to this is something that Lynn Garafola apparently translated: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL22366970M/diari...f_Marius_Petipa. However I've never seen it on sale anywhere; and Amazon does not carry it. There are some German source materials and French of Petipa's diaries. And, from what I found at the Theatrical LIbrary (in St Petersburg), there are TONS of Russian-language source materials, and quite likely more than a few about Petipa, although probably not his own since his Russian was questionable at best... OK I like this idea. Anyone else? :-)

I'm just curious, as I work on a manuscript right now, what most people would like to read about that is not already out there. Nureyev and the entire Diaghilev era seem quite well covered. How interested are people in reading detailed biographies of other Russian dancers that haven't been published yet in English? Or in specific trends in Russian ballet? (I ask about Russia as it is my personal area of interest and focus but it could be any geographical area or person or company). Is there something that hasn't been written about and you think should be? Please feel free to share your thoughts.

It is not my translation, although much of the mss I'm working on is. I found his "Khoreograficheskie Otkroivennosti" to be a very rich primary source but an untranslated one. You would not believe the wealth of original Russian source materials in the Petersburg Theatrical Library that have never been translated! It is mindblowin. But no, this is taken from "Writings on Ballet and Music" that Leonid previously mentioned, and is found on page 152. It struck me, because I have seen much of that "she danced well" by some present day critics, which to me doesn't really mean anything. How did she dance well, what about it was lovely or wonderful? Characterization and context are left out. I think a critic has to have both sides -- not just myopic vision but also not just an outsider "forest" view of the overall production. Either route is too lop-sided. From the production standpoint in particular, if someone is reviewing, for example, the Mariinsky's "Giselle", we know the production itself isn't new -- the choreography and sets and costumes are as they have been for years. So this element is invariable whereas a premiere of a new ballet is a different situation. In the former case though, well and I suppose in both cases further depth (in my humble opinion) must be given about the dancing itself. Not just "she danced well." Again, just my opinion though.

I found this very impressive quote doing research for a book I'm currently writing. Our friend Fyodor wrote it back and 1925 and yet, surprisingly, I can think of many instances where it still applies today. "Contemporary ballet critics at best remind me of the proprietors of antique shops who through their proximity to works of art have developed a practiced eye but who lack any real knowledge. [...]Until the study of the fundamentals of the art of dance becomes compulsory [.....] we cannot expect to see the emergence of a proper dance critic. [...] Someone who cannot even demonstrate the first position to a child (properly), let alone correct the child's mistakes, writes articles claiming that this or that was performed imperfectly ... The critic of the future will have to know as much about choreography as we do and more about everything else. He must be not only able to point out an error but to correct it; he must make comments that are more specific than "the ballerina was good, "the ballerina was appalling," [...] It seems to me that remarks of this sort merely underscore the mediocrity of contemporary dance criticism which until very recently has enjoyed its own special privelege of being inviolable in that it has deprived artists of any opportunity to defend themselves from even the most ill-founded and unsubstantiated attacks." -Fyodor Lopukhov, 1925

Leonid, given your comments, you will be extremely interested to read the results of my many interviews and research when they are published. I will be sure to loop back here and let you know. I am curious, how many live performances of the individuals you mention have you seen in recent years? In the meantime, I have only been following the troupe since I first saw them as a teenager in 1990, therefore you have 30+ years on me. I have however seen the company perform here in Petersburg year-round for the past five years as a resident of Russia. And having done that, I can speak to the overall quality of the troupe and of individual dancers, not just how they may appear in a single performance abroad. Thus, I have to interrupt you on one very important point. I believe any similarly "frequent" spectator of today's Mariinsky would NEVER lop Somova in with Lopatkina into the same category either technically, dramatically or aesthetically speaking. At least none of the Russians who have been following this troupe their entire lives, and have far more knowledge, in my experience, than any Westerner could ever hope for (from my observation), would even consider such a statement. Nor would they ever categorize Lopatkina together with Zakharova --- the two are far too drastically different as dancers. Or Mezentseva with the other three. Somova is the administration's "new Zakharova project" and as such can be set apart from the others into another universe. (I believe I saw Mezentseva dance only once, so I can only comment on her from film, which I don't think is the best measure of comparison with other live performances, so I will leave her out of the discussion for now). Lopatkina doesnt have the uber flexinastic ability and vulgarity you speak of. And in fact many people bemoan this point, saying she isn't "good enough", which is absolutely silly. She does not distort line at the expense of level hips or proper technique. Her leg cannot reach 190 degrees in a la seconde -- whether you think that is good or bad, she physically cannot do it, she isn't built that way in her pelvis. Zakharova and Somova are. Lopatkina, however, is the purist representative of Vaganova technique in the list you mention, and she has a unique adherence to proper port de bras, epaulement and step execution at all times. I have watched the precision and attention to detail she brings to her roles onstage here, as well to her rehearsals. You would be ill-pressed to find someone who represents pure Vaganova style, accurate (usually flawless) execution, (and is still dancing) in the company today more than she does. Somova and Zakharova are flexnastic girls, the former following in the footsteps of the latter. Unfortunately, given the Western audiences' overwhelming enthusiasm for circus tricks, the physique that Zakharova (and Guillem, in France) offered has become very popular. Somova is just the next generation of this. The administration and the impresarios bill based on audience reaction -- on what sells tickets. And so until the audience reacts to her in the way that, in my opinion, they should -- that this is not a circus, it is the ART of ballet-- until then we will continue to see her given top billing on foreign tours along with the more Balanchinean, but still "closer-to-Vaganova" technicians such as Tereshkina who at least also adhere to the basics of clean execution. I found and spoke to many pedagogues who decry this abomination of technique (I agree with you in the specific case of Somova -- despite being slender as a colt, her port de bras and epaulement is completely absent; her legwork is sloppy at best). I was pleased to hear this resounding commentary from individuals who studied under Vaganova herself, and am anxious to finish the manuscript and get it out into print. I emphasize this because this issue is NOT with the pedagogues in all cases (as you noted). In the case of who gets on stage, the pedagogues dont have any say in that, those decisions are made much higher up. I do agree that the administration is somewhat to blame -- but the pedagogues I spoke to are doing their darndest to instill the Vaganova tradition. There is much more to say but if I type it all here, I won't have a manuscript left :-) I appreciate your knowledgeable feedback and always enjoy the intellectual discussions that arise often on this board. -C.

I'm currently doing research on Russian pedagogy, but I can say this much: The position of a student in Russia is not to argue with the authority (her coach) but to take the comments and incorporate them. There is the utmost respect for these coaches, many of whom, at least in the older generation, worked with Vaganova themselves. In another 30 years, we aren't going to have her (Vaganova's) direct students around coaching others anymore... That said, I have seen some principal dancers here who talk back to their coaches and have done some very irrespectable things to them. Not everyone respects authority inside the theatre... They've used the term "ballerina" liberally and for the understanding (as i see it), of Western ears -- it's not used here (in Russia) typically to refer to just any female dancers. Finally, just a note to say I reviewed the film for the May issue of "Dance Europe" magazine, which includes short interviews with 3 of the 5 "ballerinas', in case anyone is interested. In terms of being a "look backstage" -- this film doesnt provide that at all, in my opinion.

In five years of Petersburg Don Q's, I"ve only ever seen the retire passes done here. Not the hops. Not to say they may not do them at some point, depending on the ballerina, but as Azylunn pointed out, that is the standard here.

I wanted to just concur withmost of Chiapuris and NataliaN's observations on the final performance of the festival (and many of the previous comments on other festival performances). I too attended each night and overall enjoyed this year's program much more than the repeat SLs of yesteryear. Three additional comments: About Corella, I was able to watch the stage rehearsal that afternoon, during which he asked for the coda tempo and his variation tempo to be faster, faster faster. The tempo in the performance was at his request. I agree it was overdone and the result appeared silly -- silly until he missed the fishdive and almost had Zhenya on the floor as the conductor triieedddd to draw out the music a bit. I'm not sure why he needed it so fast or spun out of control. But I can say the tempo was what he'd asked for, and not a mistake of the conductor. I truly enjoyed the Spuck pas de deux with Lopatkina for the reasons you, Natalia, mentioned. It is so rare to see Lopatkina in a non-serious role, and this one I thought she did well, in comparison to the rose-eating, borderline abusive pas with Kozlov. Here she did a fantastic job in the lighthearted piece, to the point where I could see her even as a (very tall) Copellia at some time in the future. She deserves kudos for going outside her usual typecast mode -- and the audience loved it. Regarding Somova, Chiapuris, I agree on all points. It was a travesty to see, and worse to think the company supports this. Her left wrist is constantly bent, the fingers hyperextended. The gargouillades were jerky, not smooth, and looked like hyperactive popcorn. I still do not understand why she was cast in the crowning ballet of the night AND of the festival. I have hope that under Terekhova's watch things will improve but it will take a long time.

EAW, thank you for calling me a narrow-minded critic. That's very kind of you and much appreciated. It's always nice to start the day off with an insult from a stranger for no apparent reason. Ahem. Maybe the term neoclassical "dancing" is incorrect, but neoclassical choreography definitely exists. For the record, more than one employee (dancer, choreographer, administrator) inside the Mariinsky Theatre have offered to me the same "categories" I offer to you. They consider Balanchine to be neoclassical. I cannot emphasize how many times people have said that in this theatre to me. Coming from the traditions of Petipa, they distinguish classical (Petipa) from everything that came in the 20th century (Balanchine and others). So I know I am not too off the mark making this distinction. You can rephrase it in other ways but the dotted line there does exist in terms of stylistic differences. Canbelto, thanks for mentioning that video. To clarify, I wasn't saying that Balanchine was opposed to classical training (I never knew him so I would not claim that one way or another), my point was only that his ballets are not the same as what you see when you watch Petipa's Swan Lake. I dont think that's really an opinion, it is really a factual observation. His ballets are different. I'd term them neoclassical, but you could probably describe them in other terms, and the definition you use probably depends on what your frame of reference is, on what you are comparing them *to*. As for the training, he did infuse his own school with a number of clear stylistic differences from what was (and is) taught at Vaganova. That the foundation is balletic, yes, absolutely, goes without saying. I guess we could argue either way, that it is classical or neoclassical or something else, but there are differences...for example, the way the hands are held, fingers spread out. Or, in his ballets (I don't know if this was taught in the school or not), the shifts into and out of the hip, something that you won't find anywhere in the Vaganova syllabus. So I think there is a definite departure -- albeit slight -- from pure Vaganova tradition in Balanchine technique. He took the classical syllabus and altered it, made it his, and "modernized" elements of it. So I suppose I see Balanchine as neoclassical, and neoclassical as a branching away from or out of pure classical technique, as being a subset of it. So anyway, back to my theory. If you look very specifically at each dance company, I think you can further define their styles using such terms. Balanchine's company is not what I would call modern dance or jazz dance (though there may be elements of these genres in his choreography). It is classical ballet when compared to jazz or modern or tap, yes -- but to be very precise, I would term it neoclassical based on his school and his choreography as compared to the Kirov/Mariinsky or Bolshoi. These companies also have ballets in their repertoire that are not pure classical. But when we speak about the traditions from which they stem, Balanchine is more evolved in that respect, so I wouldn't term it purely or only classical. If that makes sense. This is just my approach though, obviously. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Canbelto wrote: A very good point. Let me further refine my growing theory then :-). NYCB is a neoclassical company, and they excel at Balanchine, they are *his* company. Royal Danish is Bournonville's company, which i consider to be a branch of the classical repertoire, kind of a subset. It's not Petipa...but it's also not Balanchine. I think any company with its own tradition (ie Kirov/Petipa/Ivanov; NYCB/Balanchine; RDB/Danish choreographers) should and usually as a rule is the best executor of their "own" repertoire...

Gaynor Minden asks the dancers to do photo shoots for advertising in return for some sort of discount. They still have to purchase the shoes though. Many in the company prefer them to the Russian ones they're given monthly bc the GMs last longer.

Of course, but I think you can say this for any company even POB and Mariinsky. I found the Mariinsky's Symphony in C to be not that good, and I don't want to know what they'd do to Ashton's La Fille Mal Garde. But my point was that in the art of classical ballet, the classical repertoire is the foundation of classical ballet companies. If a company cannot dance the basics (ie the classics), doesn't that say something about their quality overall? (to me it does). Whether a given classical company can branch into neoclassical or even modern dance successfully is another question in my opinion -- ie it doesn't work going in both directions. As far as "La Fille" goes, just a note, the ballet hasn't been performed since Vinogradov left the company. Back then it was frequently performed successfully -- but back then the composition of the troupe and the strengths of the dancers was different as well. I don't know how they'd fare now but I do believe Obratsova would and could bring the house down in that role... She is perfect for it IMHO>

That's too bad. I wonder what happened? At least you heard her on a "good" night. Here, she is typically VERY reliable and VERY brilliant in any performances. It must have been the odd off night or some technical difficulty. Both audience and dancers respect her highly here.

Andre (replying to your comment, to my comment, back a bit on page 10 of this thread). I think you may have said it best, about hiding SFB's weaknesses. The thing is, if you can even make that comment about any ballet company, doesn't that say something about said company? I am sure there ARE ballets they excel in that do mask their weaknesses. (I really have no idea what happens on their tours though. Maybe different casting and/or different rep? They sure won't do a Swan Lake in Paris that is for sure!) And I also think you're right in the supposition that no American company at present can do justice to the classical repertoire, period. I think that's the main difference. You want to see a classic, do not bother with the Stateside companies. You want to see anything else, then go for it. That has become my more general approach in recent years at least. Also, SanderO, Just to underline NataliaN's point. Here in St. Petersburg there are very clear, very well understood rules inside the Mariinsky Theatre by all of the locals. Tourists are not always aware of these rules, but as soon as the tourists leave and the fall season begins here, you notice a HUGE difference in the way the dancers onstage are treated. Then around this time of year the tourists become a disproportionately large percentage of the audience, and that remains until end of the season. In high tourist season you get: 1) more/constant flash photographs during the performance 2) more bravos/applause at inopportune moments, or applause when there should be none 3) more talking/whispering*/candy unwrapping. *ALthough it is never very bad in this theatre noise-wise, there is simply an increase between April and August. A relative of mine is working in Havana. She told me the Cubans talk throughout the performance, run up and sit in the aisles, there is zero regard for the sound level, as if they are at home with the television on. She can't stand it. What's more is they have some incredible dancers there. But the crowd is also very generous and appreciative -- they go wild for the quadruple fouettes and the balances held for an eternity (Viengsay). They're just plain noisy.

p.s. Note to Helene - both Shklyarov and Zuizin, strangely, have similar physiques: both have lots of leg muscles, and very spongey plies, and great archy feet; although Schklyarov arguably has more of the leg muscle, he simply has been dancing on stage more often in more roles. Of late Zuizin has been wearing his hair longer in the back; Shklyarov's is less long and is darker. Zuizin's hair is essentially dark blonde though. In case that helps clarify who you saw! p.s. to Andre Yew - LOL. Yes, I can imagine. I have imagined; and have seen. Well put! :-)

Now THAT is the finest idea I've heard in a long time! :-) I would chip in, just let me know how! :-) SanderO - I have heard lots of people claim this, but I was thinking about this last night and I wanted to add something. Despite all the naysayers, I still think the Kirov is the finest company in the world for their corps de ballet in any sense of the word. I also think their soloists (second, first, coryphees) are among the finest in the world. I think that *as a whole*, aside from Paris Opera and the Bolshoi, they probably have the most coherency in terms of being a strong company at many levels. I first saw the Kirov in 1989 as a teenager. I was blown away. There were no dancers in the US at that time who danced the way they did. Amazingly clean technique. Amazing displays of dramatism. I grew up seeing San Francisco Ballet and ABT. As a point of comparison now, I cannot for the life of me understand the current press about SFB. The level of technique in their dancers is extremely *EXTREMELY* low compared to the Kirov. There is no uniformity. There are not even uniform body types. Some people say that is what makes America great. Personally, when I see Swan Lake, I don't want to see 32 short/tall, fat/thin Swans. I want a uniform look. That's what it's about. This is an art, and art is not an equal opportunity employer, it is about talent. And not everyone has talent. I use this as an example based on what is in the press about the company -- it has been touted as high level, the best or one of the best America has to offer. It got rave reviews for the Paris tour. But I was aghast when I saw them in February -- Balanchine's Divertimento, and Possokhov's "Firebird" with Morris' Drink to Me in between. Aside from two *RUSSIAN* dancers, (Gennady N. (whose last name I always butcher), trained at the Kirov mind you, and the newest addition, Maria Kotchetkova from the BOlshoi) there is no one I would pay to see dance in that company any more. I think general impressions and comparisons are worth alot when you're trying to figure out comments such as those that the Russian New Yorkers made. We have to take them with a grain of salt and then evaluate them based on facts and experience, and what we've seen. You see the Kirov go on stage in any ballet and they can dance RINGS around any American company. Their Balanchine is different than NYCB but it is clean and precise and lyrical. They look GOOD in it. Just as they look GOOD in Petipa. Heck...they look good in almost anything bc they are chosen from thousands of aspiring young girls and they train at the prestigious Vaganova Academy where girls are eliminated repeatedly before they even graduate. The system is tight. The dancers they produce are awesome because of the system they all go through. So have their standards lowered in recent decades? Are they not what they once were? Maybe. Maybe it's only at the upper levels. Maybe the era of Terekhova/Pankova/Lezhnina/Chistiakova/Asylmuratova was a high point in the company's history. But maybe time warps perspective. I have only current performances to compare to each other, or those I saw as a teenager/young girl growing up. I STILL think the Kirov is a great company. I still think they're better, for example, than any American company at present time (personal opinion). So if they have diminished in quality in the past 20 yrs, ...hard to say. But compared to what else is out there... I still think they are among the best in the world. You will see sparks of genius and amazing talent in this company that I'm not sure you will see other places. That's, I guess what I'm getting at. So, in defense of the Kirov, I raise my glass :-).

Yes, Sasha Sergeev is her husband. I did ask her about her plans to return to the stage -- she is planning it. Although if memory serves me right, most ballerinas in the theatre have a year of maternity leave (at least). So I would doubt we'd see her before fall 2010 at the earliest. I wanted to underscore Cygne's point too, and yours nysusan: Pavlenko is one of my top two favorites. I didn't include her on the list not because I do not adore her, but bc Petersburg fans have a very strange relationship to her that, to this day, I cannot figure out. She is an AMAZING dancer and, moreover, a very strong human being, who lives her life with integrity and adds so much beauty to the stage. I wish her only happiness. (I just had to say that for the record!) Cygnet -- YES about Kondaurova. She's been a favorite of mine since I interviewed her in 2005. I will never forget her comment in the interview when I asked about Vaganova school. "Honestly it wasn't that difficult for me." I look at her body on stage and think yes, that's exactly what it is: she is a born ballerina, the body, the loose limbs, and the impeccably gorgeous classically beautiful face (and that red hair!). The ease of her movements and her easy adaptability to different styles (modern vs classical) and ability to shine in both -- that's natural talent. Why she isn't PD yet, is beyond me, but she's always been overshadowed (casting wise) by others in the company. Not sure why.

Just for the record, Kondaurova is a natural redhead. She rinses the color lighter/darker but it's always some shade of red. When she premiered the Glass Heart here (March 6) and danced in numerous Swan Lakes, her hair was darker red (hairspray/wetter hair = darker look). No one in the company wears wigs for Forsythe. SanderO, you asked what the Kirov used to be. While I don't know that the New York immigrants you met were necessarily uhm, cultivated enough to comment, they may be, if they were avid balletomanes and lived here in St. Petersburg, which was Leningrad, at any point before 1990, esp in the 70s or during the Vinogradov era. But the comments they made do ring true to a great extent, mostly for ballerinas like Somova and Vishneva who are intent on capitalizing on the showmanship aspect of the Kirov, but do not by any means epitomize or exemplify Vaganova technique. What do I mean by that. Vishneva dances in nearly every leading ballet theater in the world -- guest artist at ABT, at the Bolshoi, touring her own show, Beauty in Motion, and before that, Kings of the Dance, the list goes on. I recently posted on Criticaldance the results of yesterday's press conference with Gergiev in which he commented that, if Vishneva was only performing one time per year at the Mariinsky Theatre, she was not technically a prima of the Mariinsky. A prima perhaps, but not of THIS theatre if she doésnt perform here. I know many people who agree with the assertion as well that she is not really a Russian ballerina in terms of plastique or expression. Her on stage persona is very much American, if you will, very dramatic, very Broadway-esque. This attracts crowds, but it isn't the Russian "way". Somova, is another but much poorer (or much stronger, however you like it) example, for her uber high extensions and lack of artistry, lack of restraint. The ballerinas of the Kirov in the past were known for portraying more artistry, more discipline, more strength, more tasteful dramatism. It wasn't about high legs and flashy jumps. It wasn't about how many foreign tours you could go on with other companies, it wasn't about making more money. It was about the history, the tradition, the style. The corps de ballet of the Kirov remains the best in the world. (Gergiev agrees with me on that :-)). But the upper layers of the Kirov have few traditional ballerinas left. Lopatkina is considered, by locals, to be the great traditionalist in this theatre. Tereshkina, technically, is following in her footsteps although the two are dramatically very very different. Some other old school Kirov types who aren't yet off the roster: Tarasova, Zhelonkina (who just performed here Wednesday night in La Sylphide). Obratsova is also very traditionally Kirov-esque. They are easy to pick out but it is hard to pinpoint the quality. It is sort of a technical perfection plus a well researched dramatic approach that never goes overboard, and is never done for kicks, is never done to the extreme. It's the confidence the viewer has that there will be no mishaps or no missteps, that the 32 fouettes will be polished and even, not bouncing, that she will finish them, not wimp out. It's the feeling the spectators come away with at the end of "Giselle", perhaps a tear or two if done correctly. It is hard to put this into words if you didn't see the Kirov in the 70s or 80s --or if you have grown up on a steady diet of American ballet only -- but suffice it to say that "democracy" isn't always good for classical traditions. Anywhere. I guess that is one way of putting it.

Thanks delibes. Someone sent me the full link (it too reverted to the index page; the second copy/paste succeeded though). Anyway it is largely speculation and rehashing of everything Gergiev *already* said in the initial ITAR TASS article that was picked up by the New York Times. It says Zelensky left an engagement at the Mikhailovsky to join this tour. But as drb pointed out, Zelensky was booked already on the NYC tour months ago (was he not)? This is just more Russian double casting confusion in my book and doesn't really relate to Vasiev's departure in any way. Dancing abroad is not directing a company abroad (MHO).

delibes, do you have the link to the Gorod article? I'd like to read the complete version in Russian if possible.

Good questions, Natalia. I'm also curious to know the answers. I am guessing it could well be a cultural thing about ending, as that's the only explanation I can think of ...

A breed apart -- well put, Cygnet. I can't help but notice that Ayupova's "retirement" has been without fanfare or announcement. I actually admire her quiet beauty even more for this -- no big gala to announce her departure from the stage as many ballerinas would insist on having. She remains an image of the old School Kirov that once was. Although I saw her perform not more than a handful of times here in St. Petersburg in the past four years, she nonetheless will be missed!