Can impresarios influence the cast of a touring troupe?

[Meliss]

In our press, one can find  information that before the Bolshoi Ballet's tour to the USA in 1979, our officials did not want Godunov to go, but the American impresarios insisted on it. I wonder if this is true or if  just legends about Godunov are already appearing. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/09/19/archives/to-impresarios-focus-is-art-not-politics-im-a-showman.html

Judging by this article, there was no such thing.

[Helene]

The article doesn't say in either direction: it does not address it.  Before the internet and later smart phones and unlimited data plans, and the demise of print advertising and print media, there were physical space limitations, and editors made sure that articles fit the allocated space.  There were no web pages for additional articles or longer versions of print articles  Unless you can see Kaiser's submitted manuscript and interview notes, you won't know what was discussed and what was left out.

Godunov said in an interview that he wasn't expecting Grigorovich to let him go on that tour, which suggests that he thought either that Grigorovich had the real authority and government officials were a rubberstamp, or Grigorovich argued for him and won if there been any resistance.  I'm not sure what your press gives as evidence/citations that officials did not want Godunov to go, because those source materials may answer the question in a way that an article in the NYT did not attempt to.

Whether the impresarios from CAM and the Nederlander group asked for Godunov specifically or was willing to risk the entire tour by insisting on it, isn't part of the article, either.  I doubt the latter was true, especially given the "regret" expressed by the Nederlander representative.  That's a way to placate Soviet officials and try to keep the rest of the tour from being canceled -- which it could easily have, if Soviet officials wanted it to, but didn't happen -- and to not jeopardize future tours   When the Kozlovs defected on the LA leg of the tour,

Quote

No comment was forthcoming yesterday from Lillian Libman, the executive of the Nederlander Producing Company of• America, the American producer of the• tour, who had earlier issued a statement expressing “great regret at the action taken by Mr. Godunov.” But Susan Lichtman, assistant to Miss Libman, told a caller, “I think enough new and exciting things have happened for a while.”

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/09/19/archives/bolshoi-couple-say-they-defected-for-personal-and-artistic-freedom.html

Whether impresarios or companies or officials or government can make  or grant demands is based on the power and aims of both sides, and how much they are willing to trade off.   For example, the article on the Kozlovs, which mentions that after their (and Godunov's defection), non of the rest of the Soviet touring artists and groups were cancelled.  And it ends with:

Quote

Similarly, Jacques Leiser, an impresario in Manhattan, said: “The Russians are not going to stop artists coming over because of a small percentage who defect. They need this; they are in the process of opening up to the world. The Olympic Games in Moscow next summer are part of that process.

Leiser's suggestion may or may not have been correct, but Soviet officials decided not to poke the cat at that time. 

Just as a general example, a presenter might sign a smaller or less prestigious or less familiar company only if Dancer XYZ is guesting as Giselle, but not if they are presenting only their own ballerinas.  While this was not true of the Bolshoi, the Kirov, and probably the Royal Ballet and Paris Opera Ballet in 1979, at least for general audiences, for lesser-known artists and companies, things were changing.  From the impresario article:

Quote

“It's not the caviar business, it's not the vodka business. The days of novelty, when just any Russian artist would draw a crowd here, are long gone. Now, American audiences want real quality.”

 

[Meliss]

2 hours ago, Helene said:

 

Godunov said in an interview that he wasn't expecting Grigorovich to let him go on that tour, which suggests that he thought either that Grigorovich had the real authority and government officials were a rubberstamp, or Grigorovich argued for him and won if there been any resistance.  I'm not sure what your press gives as evidence/citations that officials did not want Godunov to go, because those source materials may answer the question in a way that an article in the NYT did not attempt to.

 

I can't find the source now, but as far as I remember the KGB officials called Grigorovich to their office and asked him if he could guarantee that Godunov would not stay abroad. Grigorovich replied no. As for Godunov, he knew everything about the officials perfectly well, but the fact is that even with the consent of higher authorities Grigorovich had the right not to take him on tour . Godunov did not bend, unlike others - and Grigorovich considered himself a king and a god. They appreciated each other very much, but they were constantly in conflict.

Thank you for the detailed answer about the work of impresario.

Edited July 6 by Meliss

[Helene]

48 minutes ago, Meliss said:

I can't find the source now, but as far as I remember the KGB officials called Grigorovich to their office and asked him if he could guarantee that Godunov would not stay abroad. Grigorovich replied no. As for Godunov, he knew everything about the officials perfectly well, but the fact is that even with the consent of higher authorities Grigorovich had the right not to take him on tour

That shows Grigorovich's power, if he couldn't give the KGB the answer they wanted, so that they could hang him to dry if Godunov defected, but he was still able to bring him, regardless of what they thought.  They could have had extra KGB on the ground with Godunov on tour, and I would not have wanted to be they, with three defections within a month or so.

[Meliss]

15 hours ago, Helene said:

That shows Grigorovich's power, if he couldn't give the KGB the answer they wanted, so that they could hang him to dry if Godunov defected, but he was still able to bring him, regardless of what they thought.  They could have had extra KGB on the ground with Godunov on tour, and I would not have wanted to be they, with three defections within a month or so.

I'm trying to figure out why he was taken on that tour after all. Grigorovich could not guarantee that he would not defect. The KGB knew that. Maybe the impresario really put the question in such a way that either Grigorovich takes Godunov, or the tour is canceled. There is such a version.

[Helene]

 The  Bolshoi and Kirov  companies sold out tickets in the US without any specific performers, at least at that time of scarcity.   While some people and critics may have lamented that XYZ wasn’t on the tour, the assumption at the time was that anyone dancing worth going to see. 

These were business people: the financial risk was their own.  They were not government agencies trying to boost tourism and the arts, or subsidized by the government.  They weren’t performing arts organizations who had major donors and patrons.  They were more like book publishers, who lose money on a lot of their books, but subsidize that business with a best-selling author or five.  The Bolshoi and Kirov were the John Grishams and Stephen Kings of the arts presenter world, subsidizing the rest of the arts groups being offered in series, ie, buy our five ticket series, because there won’t be single tickets to be had for the Bolshoi or Kirov.  

It would have been financial folly to risk a tour by demanding that an individual be part of it, especially from the Soviet Union, which had the monopoly.  They would have discussed dancers, and they might have asked, but risking not only sales for those companies but as well as the rest of their roster by demanding that one dancer among many be part of the tour would have been an absurd business move.

Perhaps the Soviets wanted to avoid the perception that dancers were being held as political prisoners and any possible protests, like there were for years while the Panovs weren’t allowed to leave Russia.  The KGB had a lot of resources.  Perhaps they thought they could handle it, even if it were risky, especially since they expected it.

There are lots of versions.  Some of them are more feasible than others, given the information that we have.  

[Meliss]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

 The  Bolshoi and Kirov  companies sold out tickets in the US without any specific performers, at least at that time of scarcity.   While some people and critics may have lamented that XYZ wasn’t on the tour, the assumption at the time was that anyone dancing worth going to see. 

These were business people: the financial risk was their own.  They were not government agencies trying to boost tourism and the arts, or subsidized by the government.  They weren’t performing arts organizations who had major donors and patrons.  They were more like book publishers, who lose money on a lot of their books, but subsidize that business with a best-selling author or five.  The Bolshoi and Kirov were the John Grishams and Stephen Kings of the arts presenter world, subsidizing the rest of the arts groups being offered in series, ie, buy our five ticket series, because there won’t be single tickets to be had for the Bolshoi or Kirov.  

It would have been financial folly to risk a tour by demanding that an individual be part of it, especially from the Soviet Union, which had the monopoly.  They would have discussed dancers, and they might have asked, but risking not only sales for those companies but as well as the rest of their roster by demanding that one dancer among many be part of the tour would have been an absurd business move.

Perhaps the Soviets wanted to avoid the perception that dancers were being held as political prisoners and any possible protests, like there were for years while the Panovs weren’t allowed to leave Russia.  The KGB had a lot of resources.  Perhaps they thought they could handle it, even if it were risky, especially since they expected it.

There are lots of versions.  Some of them are more feasible than others, given the information that we have.  

Godunov had not been allowed to tour abroad since 1974. Plisetskaya sometimes had great difficulty getting him released somewhere in Japan or Italy as her partner, but otherwise not. Then the question arose about the 1979 tour. The KGB knew that Godunov could stay in the United States. Grigorovich did not vouch for him. They did without him on tour for five years - and in 1979 it suddenly turned out that they would not do without him. There must be a reason!

[Helene]

I'm sure there was a reason or reasons.  I don't think that the impresarios risking their tour and the rest of their series by presenting the Bolshoi tour only if Godunov danced is a plausible one.

[Meliss]

11 minutes ago, Helene said:

I'm sure there was a reason or reasons.  I don't think that the impresarios risking their tour and the rest of their series by presenting the Bolshoi tour only if Godunov danced is a plausible one.

Thank you. 

[volcanohunter]

When the tour was announced, the news was who wasn't on the roster:

"Vladimir Vassiliev and Ekaterina Maximova, two New York favorites, are not expected at this time to join the tour because of previous performing commitments. It is also uncertain whether Maya Plisetskaya, recuperating from a recent injury, will be seen here." (New York Times, 13 December 1978)

No doubt the tour organizers would have preferred to have them.

[Meliss]

27 minutes ago, volcanohunter said:

When the tour was announced, the news was who wasn't on the roster:

"Vladimir Vassiliev and Ekaterina Maximova, two New York favorites, are not expected at this time to join the tour because of previous performing commitments. It is also uncertain whether Maya Plisetskaya, recuperating from a recent injury, will be seen here." (New York Times, 13 December 1978)

No doubt the tour organizers would have preferred to have them.

Thank you. The question is whether impresarios can insist on including specific dancers in the contract. We have similar information about Plisetskaya in the press - they did not want to let her go on tour, but Hurok insisted.

[Helene]

Anyone can ask, request, or insist on anything in a negotiation, if they are willing to risk that the other side will walk away, and they will lose everything.

Not everyone was Hurok, either.

 

[Meliss]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

Anyone can ask, request, or insist on anything in a negotiation, if they are willing to risk that the other side will walk away, and they will lose everything.

Not everyone was Hurok, either.

 

I see. Thank you.

[Jayne]

Theorizing here:  It may have depended on the financial health of the arts budget at the time.  The USSR political apparatchnik may have decided that cash dollars were worth the risk of bringing a free-thinking star dancer.  
 

1979-1989 was the final decade of the USSR and their financials were stagnating.  
 

Or a bribe was paid to look the other way?  That would be very common in the USSR as well.  

Edited July 7 by Jayne

[Helene]

There is no evidence that the impresarios even asked for Godunov be included, let alone bribed someone to include him. There is no evidence that the impresarios were willing to risk the tour, if they demanded Godunov appear and the Soviets refused, money or no money.

There was a lot of national pride on the line, and substantial evidence that people who were considered responsible for whatever the powers that be considered bad results, could have their lives taken or ruined, and their families would be as well, without strong ties.  There were changes happening in the Soviet government over time, though that might explain the decision.

Someone with a better understanding of the Soviet Union in that time might have a better idea of the factors in play at the time.   The capitalist side of things and the Western side of the Cold War are more easily understandable from a Western point of view than what Churchill called "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."

[volcanohunter]

Judging by the repertoire, I would venture a guess that Grigorovich was calling all the shots. Because honestly, I don't think that Grigorovich's Legend of Love, The Stone Flower and Romeo and Juliet would have been an impresario's top choices. Sure, Swan Lake and Spartacus would have sold well. The others were not guaranteed hits by any means.

(As it stands, the tour began in Canada, and Swan Lake received terrible reviews, not least because the sets didn't arrive on time. Although the sight of Virsaladze's designs might have made matters even worse!)

Edited July 7 by volcanohunter