Ilya

Thanks, Batsuchan. Tchaikovsky has an Overture-Fantasy "Romeo and Juliet" which is performed often and is a complete work. He also has a sketch for a vocal duet (soprano + tenor) "Romeo and Juliet", which was completed by Taneyev. It is based on the Overture-Fantasy but also contains additional material. This additional material serves as the basis for the beginning of the mirror pas de deux from "Onegin". However, the music I was referring to---the last two minutes of the mirror pas de deux---is not from this duet. (All this can be verified through youtube which has at least one rendition of the "Duet of Romeo and Juliet".) I'm sure the last two minutes of the pdd are from something that's commonly performed, because they sound very familiar. This is what's so maddening about not being able to recall where they are from!

I have a question about the music that accompanies the last two minutes of the mirror pas de deux. Does anyone know which specific piece it comes from? This theme is subsequently reprised during the final pas de deux, for about one minute---in the midst of "Francesca da Rimini"---just before Tatiana returns Onegin's letter. It sounds very familiar, but I'm unable to recall where it is from. This has been driving me insane for the last few days.

This is quite obviously overdue by several years. Also, I wonder---does the Mariinsky have a press department? In most other companies, a promotion to principal is big news which merits a press release. Some companies even have a little on-stage ceremony when this happens. At the Mariinsky, the webmaster quietly moves the name from one category to another. Strange.

This is correct. Tatyana of the book is quite a bit different from the opera and ballet. She is absolutely very steadfast in the book, and it is very clear that there is no possibility of an affair (he unsuccessfully pursues her for several months before their final meeting). However, it is also very clear that she loves him---this makes the final chapter very moving.

FauxPas and Bart, Henry Spalding’s translation of Pushkin’s novel is part of Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/23997/pg23997.txt Charles Johnston’s translation can also be found online. Chapter 1, stanza XLVI says that his uncle was dead by the time Onegin arrived from St Petersburg. Chapter 8 (last chapter), stanza XX says that he kept Tatyana’s letter. Sorry Bart, your recollection of the final scene from Pushkin is wrong. When Onegin enters, she is weeping over his letter (Chapter 8, Stanza XXXIX). In the final scene (stanzas XXXIX-XLVII) she admits that she still loves him.

In Pushkin, the uncle is dead and Onegin is rich by the time Onegin and Tatiana meet. Also, in Pushkin, he never returns her letter. He keeps it until the end of the novel.

Osipova was back tonight. Judging by the incredible hight of the jumps during the lezginka, fully recovered. Wow. The rest of the cast was marvelous as well: Reyes, Cornejo, Simkin, and the supporting cast, especially Susan Jones.

You mean Ivan? Vladimir Vasiliev is about twice her age.

This is how I would like to feel. However, very recently, Copeland said this: In light of this quote, I'm unable to muster any sympathy for Copeland's predicament as Gamzatti. We have now had a vivid side-by-side comparison of Copeland with several of these "international stars": specifically, with Cojocaru and Vasiliev in the same performance and with Osipova in the next day's performance. All these comparisons were hugely unflattering to Copeland both in terms of capabilities and technique (and artistry as well). These performances also amply demonstrated why these international stars made a name for themselves.

Perhaps this is the article in question? http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/entertainment/story.html?id=6659989 It says (next to last paragraph): This is simply a clueless reporter.

Yes, it was a great touch---the fleeting evil smile while Solor wasn't looking at her. As to Osipova's dancing, I agree as well. I had expected forcefulness a la her Kitri, but her Gamzatti turned out a completely different character: the dancing was refined, beguiling, and airy. Osipova gave an interview several years ago where she described in detail her conception of the role of Giselle. I wish someone would interview--at length--her and Gomes about their approach to Bayadere.

Another stunning Bayadere Friday night. Surprisingly, Osipova was able to make Gamzatti a dramatically interesting character; even more miraculously, she and Gomes succeeded in introducing a nuanced storyline into Bayadere. This feat was anchored in several mime sequences in Scenes 2 and 3 of Act I and in Act III. The inventions were too numerous for me to fully and properly describe here. Osipova's Gamzatti is intelligent and charming. After being introduced to Solor she breaks the ice by making witty conversation. She then invites him to a game of chess and turns out to be a strong player, further impressing Solor. She gradually wins him over through her charm and wit, and by the time they leave the room together in Scene 2 there is rapport between them. During the remainder of Scene 2, Gamzatti displays a wide spectrum of emotions: she has genuine feelings for Solor and at times displays vulnerability; at other times, she shows resolve to do whatever it takes to win Solor over and to eliminate all competition. Quite logically, in Scene 3 of Act I she proceeds to do both. In this context, the pas de deux is seen as the continuation of the courtship: Gamzatti tries to charm Solor. She is refined, playful, and full of life. By the end of the pas de deux, Solor is quite smitten. When Nikiya starts her dance, Solor feels remorse; however, Gamzatti distracts him by flirting with him. She has a great sense of humor: when she whispers something to him, he cannot suppress a smile. At this point, one gets the impression that, had there been no poisonous snake, Gamzatti and Solor would get married and live happily everafter. Nikiya's death changes everything. Solor never looks at Gamzatti the same way. A couple of times, his facial expressions in Act III betray that he still has some feelings for Gamzatti; however, he obviously cannot get over the murder of Nikiya. A fascinating solution to the problem of how to make bland characters interesting and how to make a boring and illogical story gripping and convincing. In many years of watching various Bayaderes, I have never seen anything like this. I would be interested to know whether all this is original or has been done before.

At Thursday’s Bayadere (Cojocaru-Copeland-Vasiliev), there was a sizeable contingent from the Mikhailovsky, including Vladimir Kekhman and Mikhail Messerer. Also present were the Danilians. I wonder if there is any particular reason for this.

Stellar performances from both Cojocaru and Vasiliev in tonight's Bayadere (Thursday night). Great rapport between the two. The strangest part of the performance was the Gamzatti-Solor pdd. Pairing Misty Copeland and Vasiliev was an odd decision which did not do either of them any favors and put both in untenable positions. There was a great contrast between his great elevation and her complete lack thereof, despite his visible efforts to dial it down and her efforts to do her best. This incongruency didn't allow me to fully enjoy his variation, even though it was spectacularly performed. On the other hand, both the duet with Cojocaru in the first scene and the entire Shades act were fantastic. Cojocaru is very musical and technically superb. She and Vasiliev are dramatically convincing, both on their own and during their duets. His double assembles are truly unbelievable---I've seen him execute them several times before, but I am still stunned every time. Just like last year in Coppelia, he ran out of real estate towards the end of his variation. Among the other performers, Stella Abrera stood out as the third Shade.

Actually Murphy, Kajiya, and Phillips were all in the Cojocaru-Corella performance. These roles were danced by Stella Abrera, Misty Copeland, and Craig Salstein, respectively, in the Osipova-Hallberg performance.

The earliest video of Giselle I'm aware of is Ulanova-Fedeyechev from 1956. Fadeyechev performs brises. So does Nureyev in the 1962 excerpts filmed with Fonteyn. The earliest video with entrechats that I've seen was the ABT 1969 movie with Fracci and Bruhn. (All these are on youtube, but I'm not sure if posting youtube links goes against the board policy.)

The discussion variously names Lifar, Nureyev, and Bruhn as the person who first introduced entrechats sixes. Also, the discussion seems to be ambivalent on the issue of whether brises were there originally. Any clarifications anyone? Regarding Cojocaru, it seemed quite clear to me that, contrary to what was implied in some of the previous posts, the steps she was doing weren't a mistake---i.e., they were planned. She didn't fall off pointe during her variation---she deliberately performed a different set of steps. This was a little puzzling to me, since there was a lot of other pointe work elsewhere that she did quite effortlessly (e.g., pique turns in the same variation).

Regarding question (2), brises voles seem to be more standard (e.g., Corella did them on Thursday); however, many dancers do entrechats sixes these days: e.g., Hallberg, Gomes, and Le Riche. Perhaps someone knows whether brises were part of the original Coralli/Perrot choreography? Also, I am curious---was Erik Bruhn the first one to substitute them for entrechats sixes?

With a ball on her nose? I did not see one iota of showiness in Osipova's performance. It is true that she is able to perform technical feats that no other ballerina can perform. However, it would be absurd to pre-suppose that this ability automatically must turn her performances into a circus act. She simply has a wider variety of ingredients with which to bake a cake, so to speak. On Saturday, both Osipova and Hallberg gave a complete performance where all the technical details were subjugated to the storytelling and character development (as they should be). I found two aspects of the performance particularly fascinating. The first one is Osipova's very interesting treatment of tempi---akin to a romantic-style performance of a Chopin piece, with lots of rubato---except that here it clearly must have required meticulous rehearsals with the conductor. The second surprising element was the treatment of Albrecht's relationship with Giselle. For example, when Hilarion reveals that Albrecht is a nobleman, Giselle asks Albrecht whether this is true. All Albrechts that I can recall (including Angel Corella on Thursday) placidly respond: "No, this is not true." Hallberg's Albrecht was mortified and mimed something like: "Yes, it is, but let me explain…"---at which point Giselle, crushed, ran to her mother.

In my view, the Flames of Paris pdd requires Osipova and Vasiliev's take-no-prisoners approach (after all, those revolutionaries didn't take many prisoners, did they?) I found it dramatically compelling. And it took real guts for Vasiliev to not even take it down a single notch after a fall at the beginning of his variation. As to his sense of line, perhaps I don't fully understand what this means since I'm not a ballet professional; however, to my non-professional eye, his assembles looked truly incredible and made him seem both much taller and more streamlined than some other dancers who might be taller or more classically proportioned. By the way---I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that horrendous violin playing. (It was briefly mentioned in the NYT review.) ABT's orchestra is never anything to write home about. Actually, last season I thought they were improving a bit compared to their usual mediocre level. I always cringe at the invariably off-pitch violin solos in Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, and La Bayadere. But the violin solos during the gala---especially Swan Lake---were absolutely the worst I have ever experienced during my 20 years of attending ABT performances. It was truly bizarre.

Does anyone know what happened to this POB Raymonda filmed in late 2008? It never came out on a DVD. Has the decision been made not to release it? And if so, why?

From the NY Times article: So Mr. Danilian was gambling Mikhailovsky's entire NYC tour on (1) Osipova and Vasiliev joining the company; (2) ABT releasing them from their contract. And he never even bothered to check with ABT beforehand. This is astonishingly reckless and unprofessional. And this comes on the heels of his patently unprofessional handling of the aftermath of Osipova and Vasiliev's transfer to the Mikhailovsky. One wonders if both they and Mikhailovsky---and we their audience---might perhaps be better off with a different agent.

Tsiskaridze is a tireless self-promoter. During the last few years, he has been regularly appearing on various entertainment shows and talk shows on Russian TV---excerpts of his appearances are abundant on youtube. He has been on "Pozner", on "School for Scandal", on "Temporarily Available", on "Here and Now", on "Personal Things", on "Devchata", on "Russian Century", on "In Your House", on "Our Favorite Animals", etc, etc, etc. Most of his interviews have two components: (1) how great he is and (2) how terrible is whoever is his villain of the day. The villains of the day are usually the administration of the Bolshoi or other dancers. During Ratmansky's tenure practically every Tsiskaridze's interview (and there were a lot!) had really nasty ad hominem attacks against Ratmansky. Based on this context, what he is saying about David Hallberg is not surprising at all. If history is any indication, he is going to continue and he is going to be relentless. Mr. Hallberg should fasten his seatbelt for a tough ride. While some of Tsiskaridze's opinions on the reconstruction and other issues may have merit, the history of his public statements makes it difficult to take anything he says seriously.

The theater didn't have its own company when the Tsars owned it, it was just a building that hosted various guest companies. The current company was created in 1918 and had the title "State Academic Theater" from 1919 until 1964. "State" was dropped from the title in 1964. I suppose this may mean that the city has been supporting it since then. I have not seen any press reports or history books that provide a definitive answer as to who has "owned" it since 1964. For now, this question is purely academic anyway because the company is far from profitable and will remain so for years to come. (E.g., a major renovation is planned for 2013. Clearly, if this is to happen, the funds will have to come from Mr. Kekhman and other private donors.)

The actual article says nothing of the sort, and everybody on this board can read it for themselves, as it is in English, http://www.sptimes.r...&story_id=31897 Here is the full quote from the article: The article very clearly says that Mr. Kekhman is the owner of JFC and benefactor of Mikhailovsky Theater. Nowhere does the article state or imply that Mr. Kekhman owns or co-owns or derives any profit from Mikhailovsky Theater. On the contrary, the article reports that Mr. Kekhman has donated a lot of money to the theater.