assoluta

It was a delight to see Etudes again, although I think that the version given may have been a longer one than that shown by ENB. That's the way to end a triple bill on a real high.

 

The programme was a well-balanced one. The Cage (Robbins) is 'interesting' but mercifully short (15 mins). I think maybe that one needs to be Russian to appreciate The Russian Seasons (Ratmansky). It seemed more straightforward in its 12 episodes than The Human Seasons but it felt like a series of folk-like dances which didn't really go anywhere or have any depth.

The Russian Seasons is, unfortunately, weak, no match for Lander's Etudes, I am afraid somebody at Bolshoi made a calculation to the effect that Ratmansky's name 'sells' no matter what you show. Perhaps in New York, not in London (or Paris).

billboyd do you think that there is some knife twisting going on with the critics ? It did cross my mind as I read the critics' reviews that perhaps there may be an element of 'getting back' at Polunin for ditching and dissing the RB. I have not seen the show, but really hope, as I'm sure others do that it will garner more positive reviews.  

Oh, absolutely, there is more than "an element of 'getting back'". How did a boy "from a poor country" (something he had heard a lot while studying at the Royal Ballet School and afterwards) dare to dis that sacred cow of an institution that some of us forget has been in existence only since the end of the World War II.

How can I, for example, trust Debra Crane's damning condemnation ("Banal, ludicrous and bombastic", one might think she is one of the guardians of "good taste") when I vividly recall her enthusiastic endorsement of tasteless banality of Arthur Pita's "provocations" that I am unable to call "choreography"?

This is not to say that I do not share with some critics (Clement Crisp, Mark Monahan) sadness and frustration that an "electrifying, once-in-a-generation dancer" is wasting his unique talent, except that I hold "guilty" for this state of affairs as much the ballet establishment itself that prefers obedient mediocrity.

I pulled out my programme for Pavlova that I found in my mother in laws papers, she was famous because she toured everywhere and danced in many original situations.

One needs remembering that Anna Pavlova's fame preceded her touring the world. Touring for almost 40 years was essentially the only form ballet existed in the West between 1910 and 1950 and of all the touring ballerine only Pavlova achieved that legendary status. Today touring "Russian ballet" companies are still very common yet the artists involved in such projects are on the periphery of the world of ballet. Even Irina Kolesnikova, a supreme artist, better known in the West, especially here at UK, is completely ignored at home in Russia (it's true that the touring company of her husband itself is weak) but even here how many of us think of her equal in status to the principals of the Royal Ballet or étoiles of the Paris Opéra? (I do.)

The only question I am personally concerned with is "who is or has a potential to become a great artist"?

I still believe there was a different ratio in the bygone years of those who were great artists to those who were "famous". Revive today Anna Pavlova, Olga Spessivtseva or Nina Vyroubova, and most of today's so called "critics" would hardly notice them at all or, worse, they would actually criticize them for some insignificant failings being totally blind to their unique artistry. I am not sure about today's public either. I think it became quite cynical overall, too cynical to crave for artistry.

It gives me no pleasure to say this but I have to admit that after seeing Copeland I was left wondering how much of her reputation was attributable to her abilities as a dancer and how much was attributable to the workings of an effective publicity machine?

I would go even further and ask how many dancers today owe their fame to their supreme artistry and not to an effective publicity machine, the entertaining value of the circus tricks they are known to show on stage, or the fact they become virtually identified with certain companies by being constantly featured in their productions, being perennial participants in countless gala, etc? To paraphrase FLOSS, it gives me no pleasure to say this but I have to admit that not many (more precisely, almost none).

Thank you. That's a lesson in not believing everything that one reads on the internet! Perhaps it got lost in translation and "related" would describe it better. She herself says that the family have some of Kschessinska's old costumes. The relationship is one of those "fun facts": she'll need to make her own way and, on the basis of last night, should have a good chance of doing so.

For many years it was assumed that Celina Krzesinska, born in 1911, was a daughter of Mathilde's brother. More recently an archival evidence has appeared that she was in fact a daughter of Mathilde herself.

http://www.nnov.kp.ru/daily/26626/3644679/

The Paris Opera Ballet School just posted details of what looks like a very interesting set of activities for 4th and 5th April. See:

https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/news/the-programme-offered-for-the-2nd-edition-of-the-gala-des-ecoles-de-danse-du-xxie-siecle-is-available

 

- Tuesday 4th from 14h to 17h00 at the Palais Garnier: come and watch the live rehearsal of the Gala and the Schools March.

 

- Wednesday 5th at the Paris Opera Ballet School:

 

o From 10h to 13h : panel discussion with all Directors on the following subjects : the relationships between schools and companies, evolution of the training compared to the evolution of the repertoires, the increasing difficulties of the auditions…

 

o From 14h to 15h30 : observation of ballet classes (POB's students and guests)

 

o From 16h to 18h : observation of our guests rehearsals.

 

o From 19h30 to 21h : screening of pieces of POB's repertoire and Q&A about the French style

 

There's a link at that page to the registration form. It costs 100 euros for the 2 days...

[edited for typos]

Initially, when I heard the news almost a year ago about Elisabeth Platel extending an invitation to Nikolai Tsiskaridze, I was almost jubilant. Now, I am afraid this is going to be much ado about nothing. A lot more useful would be to invite a single school (like the Vaganova Academy) to give a real concert performance at Palais Garnier. Instead, we are getting yet another expensive yet meaningless gala and similarly meaningless activities surrounding it. I am not going.

I'd be more than happy to see Osmolkina and Kolegova too.

While talking about the ladies, Svetlana Ivanova (unassailable Number One on my list), then Osmolkina, then Novikova. Anastasia Lukina among the younger ones. I don't care much for the principals (Vishneva is anything but 'lyrical', by the way). Under Mr. Fateev, Mariinsky became the greatest corps de ballet company, no doubt about it, all the talent buried and languishing there for years. Seeing how they can do Classics is more important than who is dancing the principal parts.

assoluta, I don't think that the RB has ever suggested that the Garland Dance is a reconstruction of anything.

I didn't suggest that, I said that your post reminds all of us that the modern choreographers, including the ones who have been darlings of the critics, simply do not measure up in terms of their command of the idiom of classical dance with those who should they consider to be their masters. This is particularly noticeable in the works that are presented as "reconstructions", as the viewing public has little knowledge of what has been "retrieved" from the available sources, what is new choreography.

 

There are still  things which I would like to see revisited and revived. The first act needs a more interesting opening than Wheeldon's Garland Dance provides for it. It is a very poor thing in comparison with the rest of the choreography in the act. It does not live up to the music  and it fails to provide any real contrast with what follows, it is merely bland milk and water choreography. The entire ballet was  created as a dance extravaganza and the stage needs to be populated and filled with dance of the highest quality. The original Petipa waltz, one of his cast of thousands set pieces with massed groupings and large groups of dancers moving around the stage, obviously was not feasible when the company first staged the ballet, but  today it should be given serious consideration. For me Wheeldon's  Garland Dance is exceedingly limp and unimaginative. It was a kind gesture to give him the opportunity to be a link in the chain by choreographing that section but with the company in its current form it deserves something better either restoration of one of  Ashton's versions or perhaps restoring the original choreography using the students from both branches of the RBS. I also think that the second act Hunting Scene would benefit from the restoration of the Farandole.

You also raise an important point that is frequently overlooked by ballet goers overenthusiastic about so called "reconstructions": the choreographers involved in such projects resort to filling gaps in the preserved sources by composing anew missing numbers "to the best of their abilities". And the result is, unfortunately, most of the time as you say it, "bland milk", "exceedingly limp and unimaginative".

Despite these glitches I enjoyed it as much, if not more, than I did on Friday night.  I think probably the best way to enjoy it is to go and see it as a visual and aural experience rather than a dance performance.

A sound advice, I am afraid. This week in Paris the "dancing" part felt like a tired exercise in gymnastics with Marie-Agnès Gillot making an impression as if she was completely disengaged from the piece itself.

I see that they are still showing Jacopo Tissi has hailing from La Scala when he is now with the Bolshoi, isn't he?

If he is, he is not listed and he is not dancing yet (he may be rehearsing with Kovalyova though).

So many congratulations to all at NB for this very well deserved award!

I am delighted to see 1984 winning the best choreography award.

There are differences between Ulanova's move to Moscow and other more recent ones. First,as far as I know,those recent decisions have been voluntary rather than directed by the regime.Second at the time when Ulanova moved to Moscow there was no suggestion that the feeder school  for the Kirov was anything other than one which provided exceptional teaching. The point that I was making was that the dancers graduating from the Vaganova who have decided to pursue their careers in Moscow in recent years have been the products of an institution which has been subject to what has appeared to be a concerted campaign criticising the quality of the teaching there.

Ulanova's case was indeed exceptional, agreed. Were Semeniaka or Zakharova ordered by "the regime" to move to Bolshoi, however?

Concerning your next sentence, I have two objections, I am afraid. Are you aware that Vaganova herself was subject to very harsh criticism in those years when such criticisms could easily result in her arrest, having been sent to a GULAG camp, and likely perish there? And your "concerted campaign criticising the quality of the teaching there" doesn't ring true to me, I am only aware of statements to this effect by Mr Gergiev and his proxy, Mr Fateev, both having their own interest in making such suggestions.

My impression is that the St Petersburg graduates who have decided to go to Moscow have done so because of the artistic policy which Gergiev is pursuing at the Mariinsky which, as far as the ballet is concerned, is rather limited. Indeed there are those who suggest that Gergiev has simply been using the ballet company as a cash cow.

That is indeed so or, to say it more bluntly, those graduates try not to have their prospects of growth and artistic development obliterated by Mr Gergiev's policies towards ballet. Something similar happened at the end of the 19th Century when protracted discriminatory policies against ballet by a hostile director of Grand Opéra essentially wiped out ballet in Paris. Of course, as long as the Vaganova Academy continues producing those (despised by MAB) 'contortionists', ballet in Petersburg will live but its existence at Mariinsky is being reduced to a sad state compared to its days of former glory.

Bruce I should like to think that we might see Alexandrova as a guest artist in London at some point with either ENB or at the Opera House.

That is entirely possible and is one reason why renowned dancers at a certain age go 'freelancing'. According to what I know, she may have already her own artistic projects underway.

I want to register my admiration and pay tribute to the level of artistry displayed by Irina Kolesnikova as Giselle in her recent performances at Théâtre des Champs-Elysées (26 and 27 January 2017). Forgive me for saying that, but you will almost never see this kind of artistry on any major ballet stage in the World now. Kolesnikova reminds me of the greatest interpreters of this role: Spesivtseva, Vyroubova, Bessmertnova. I can only wish that the other dancers possessed her interpretative depth and vision, and the delicacy of feeling that she is capable of projecting through her slightest gestures and movement. As such she stands for me as one of the greatest living ballet artists today.

 

Does anyone think it strange that the Mariinsky's school which was deemed to be underperforming so badly, as far as the production of top class dancers was concerned, that its head was replaced appears to have been perfectly capable of producing a significant number of the Bolshoi's current top names?

The head of the Vaganova Academy was replaced for completely unrelated reasons, there is a lot of confusion surrounding this issue in the West. Concerning Alexandrova, her controversial departure from the Bolshoi in the middle of the season will likely increase interest in her artistic projects that she will be soon launching in the West. The more people talk about her right now, the greater interest those projects will generate.

Managed to get to the broadcast and was very impressed. Smirnova is so elegant and stylish, has a certain panache about her that makes her irresistible. Chudin was dashing to match. Stepanova did not catch my eye, maybe i have seen too little of her to fully appreciate, but she looked a bit bored with this role. The rest of the cast were decent, but did not look like they were enjoying themselves. Only the Bluebird gentleman had that certain quality that stirs the senses.

I had a completely different impression when watching the broadcast. Maybe it was by contrast with Smirnova who seemed totally preoccupied with performing the steps the right way, while other dancers enjoyed themselves dancing. One has to take into account, of course, that filming and mixing the images from several cameras seriously impact the viewing experience.

I adore the Bolshoi's production decorations including the floor.

According to the cast list published on the Bolshoi website, Margarita Shrainer was indeed "Twittering Canary" (as they have translated it). Miss Shrainer also danced the Diamond Fairy in the last Act. We were very impressed with Yulia Stepanova as the Lilac Fairy.

There was, it seems, a last minute change not reflected on the Bolshoi site: to my eye the Gold Fairy was danced by Elvina Ibraimova, not by Victoria Yakusheva.

I think reputation and talent in the ballet world go very much in tandem.

If so, then Nijinsky and Nureyev must have had very little talent.

@ Don Q Fan

If you visit Hamburg Ballett's site and check their repertoire for the period of your likely visit, I may be able to advise re. your choices.

I would like to say Naomi M provided in her post an excellent report on the state of recorded Raymonda's. I agree with every point she makes. Bessmertnova was a great "tragic" ballerina, whose Giselle was bringing tears to my eyes, but her 1989 recording of Raymonda came too late, unfortunately, in her career to show the greatness of that unique artist. Several years ago I saw Grigorovich's version with Alexandrova and I wouldn't say I liked it. It wasn't regal enough, and somehow lacked finesse and brilliance, I found the sets too drab. Remarkably, and rather unexpectedly, its recent return onto the historic stage of Bolshoi felt like a discovery of a lost gem and convinced me that Raymonda really belongs to grand ole' ballets, with five variations by Raymonda being as memorable and unique as almost every great piece of ballerina's craft. So much depends in them not just on perfect execution of steps and notes of the choreographic text but also on ballerina's ability to create and project an unforgettable and true image. As much as I value both Guillem and Zakharova, their recorded interpretations of the famous final variation I find disappointingly misreading its purpose to be a profound meditation of Raymonda on her fate rather than a shallow display of narcissism. This may be, unfortunately, a reigning paradigm at Bolshoi, since Yulia Stepanova debuting in the role of Raymonda, was also showing signs of the same misreading in the final variation. Her portrayal of Raymonda, however, was imbued throughout three acts with remarkable degree of profound sentiment and nuanced nobility while her poetic and hyper-musical Third variation was for me one of the high points of the pre-New Year season.

Recordings of Raymonda are so rare, every one must be treasured. To the list of those discussed by Naomi, I would add a recording of October 22, 1988, performance in Paris, with Florence Clerc, Charles Jude, Laurent Hilaire, Karin Averty, Clotilde Vayer, Gérard Claudel and Wilfried Romoli.

Not being familiar with either the Mariinsky or the dancers if I were to select one which one should it be? If the Bolshoi prices are anything to go by then it will be one.

Their Swan Lake. For the glory of Mariinsky's corps de ballet and their Vaganova Academy training.

Neumeier is one of very-very few modern masters. Everything he does deserves attention and repeated viewing. I would say that his Tatiana is less successful, it seems that the choreographer became to some extent a hostage of the music composer (he admitted it himself in one of the interviews), while it should be the other way: a composer of music commissioned for a ballet should be at the choreographer's service.

Mathieu Ganio was only dancing Prince Siegfried (all 6 times with Amandine Albisson). To have 4 casts of principals in big programme blocs has been a custom at the Opéra, with each cast dancing 4-5 times on average. Lefèvre and Millepied have been usually selecting one or two principals plus those who were best suited for those parts. In Classics this usually meant sujets like Giezendanner, Guérineau, Marine Ganio, more recently Héloïse Bourdon, dancing big classical parts. If Dupont thought that such an approach was an aberration (to some extent it was), she set out to correct it from the wrong end: instead of promoting the best, the most interesting, classical dancers in the company, she is now assigning those big classical parts to dancers considered by her predecessors to be unsuitable for such parts. Now she creates étoiles out of nowhere on a whim: making a dancer with essentially zero experience (and no demonstrated promise) in Classics an étoile is perhaps the most bizarre thing to do and sends a strong and unwelcome signal to the dancers of the troupe. There is a very strong sense of unease in balletic circles in Paris.

Bill - think you need to quote the full reference - 

 

Much as I too cherish the fact that K. O'Hare - who is doing a brilliant job and reaping the benefits of his building from the bottom up - I do wish he would stop bringing in a certain Ukrainian guest - a fine dancer in her own right but surely not a unique force in any marked rep on the world stage - when there simply is NO need and there is just so much talent in the RB's hand to play.  If this means having to say 'No' to a certain Mr. McRae so be it.  Just think McRae might well then have the privilege of dancing with Anna-Rose O'Sullivan.  O lucky him I say!  

 

It has been suggested here - as elsewhere - that the reason the referenced dancer is brought in so plenteously is on Mr. McRae's insistence/request.  I have no knowledge whether or not this is true - but I do find the 'guesting' unjustified when there is so much RB talent on hand - as is now frequently commented upon in these boards.  Surely they deserve first dibs at those prised opportunities ... and surely Mr. McRae deserves the chance to dance with more of the stellar in-house developing artists.

Whatever the reasons she is visiting us, I found 'the referenced dancer' to be so exquisite I feel happy each time I see her dancing. Surely there should be a way to accommodate the need to showcase home bred talents without necessity to deprive at least some of us the esthetic pleasures of seeing a dancer as refined as her.