Russian Orchestras/Russian Ballets

Karen Selwyn wrote:



Please re-read my post. The topic of bans on instruments in cabins
wasn't even mentioned much less Russian musicians being singularly
affected. I was trying to find out the answer to the question that has
nagged me since Mr. Travel posted it so I started this thread.

Most of us have experienced "mr travel's" trolling too often
to be misled (apparently you don't read this newsgroup as
regularly as many of us do). Even when he posts about
travel, the regulars with much more travel experience than I
find some of his statements ludicrous, although he CLAIMS
to be a travel professional. (Caveat emptor!)

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

Saturday, August 12, Mr. Travel wrote: "What's the difference between
qualified people from Russia or the US playing the same music?"

That same day you responded, "Don't display your ignorance, moron!"

Are you saying his asinine question was NOT moronic? No two equally
qualified musicians play the same piece of music the SAME (and no two
directors interpret it the same). To think they are interchangeable is
to display abysmal ignorance, IMO!

If you define his question as asinine, of course it's moronic.

However, I thought the question spoke to national characteristics of
musicians, and that strikes me as a legitimate question. In fact,
several posters shared my point of view since they have answered my post
by praising Russian musicians' interpretations of Russian music and
criticizing Russian interpretations of Vivaldi or Mozart.

Karen Selwyn

Please, I'm legitimately interested. Simply stating the Bolshoi and London
Philharmonic aren't the same isn't helping me. Is the difference
interpretation? execution? what? Are there specific recordings I could
listen to to hear the difference.

It is not just the Bolshoi/Kirov orchestras that are different, it is all
Russian orchestras. Russian orchestras tend to have stronger brass
than the more refined orchestras of, say, Vienna. Gergiev, the
conductor of the Kirov orchestra, released a CD of Rimsky-Korsakov's
Scheherazade. Normally this is a delicate, romantic piece, at least as
played by American and Western European orchestras. But Gergiev
played it as a typical Russian orchestra would. One comment from
Amazon put it rather well. The reviewer joked that he never realized
that Scheherazade was in reality a large-boned, Russian farmgirl, as
compared to the usual delicate Arabian woman (usual in the context
of the music, not necessarily in reality). If you could borrow a copy
of Gergiev's CD and compare it to one by Sir Charles Mackerras
and the London Symphony Orchestra, you would hear the difference.
Both are interesting, but no one would confuse one for the other.

If you define his question as asinine, of course it's moronic.

All of mrtravel's posts are moronic, IMO.

However, I thought the question spoke to national characteristics
of musicians, and that strikes me as a legitimate question. In fact,
several posters shared my point of view since they have answered
my post by praising Russian musicians' interpretations of Russian
music and criticizing Russian interpretations of Vivaldi or Mozart.

As I wrote in my other post, Russian orchestras tend to be rougher
than Western European or American orchestras. I must admit that
I am ignorant of whether this is historically correct, i.e. were
Tchaikovsky's ballets played that way during his lifetime? I suspect
that it is true for a simple reason; Russian orchestras never had
the big budget for high-class instruments. Pletnev, a somewhat
controversial conductor, took an existing Russian orchestra and
renamed it to be the Russian National Orchestra. In the process
he replaced the original Russian brass with new German brass, and
changed the sound of the orchestra. Some classical music fans
think that this ruined the sound of the orchestra, but I think that is
for each listener to decide. A Russian orchestra playing Mozart
makes me shudder.

By the way, classical music fanatics, otherwise known as snobs,
tend to think that the USA has only a few great orchestras, e.g.
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and maybe one or two others. New
York would be the worst member of that club.

spamfree ha scritto:

Please, I'm legitimately interested. Simply stating the Bolshoi and London
Philharmonic aren't the same isn't helping me. Is the difference
interpretation? execution? what? Are there specific recordings I could
listen to to hear the difference.

It is not just the Bolshoi/Kirov

By the way, isn't that the Malinskii now?

Sergio
Pisa

wrote:

It is not just the Bolshoi/Kirov


By the way, isn't that the Malinskii now?

Yes and no -- and I don't mean the detail that it's really spelled
Mariinsky.

The theater in St. Petersburg went back to its historic name as part of
the wholesale return to historic names in the early '90s. However, the
company discovered that they didn't sell as many tickets when they
toured if they, too, adopted the name change. Now, the company tours
under the name Kirov, although they perform domestically under the name
Mariinsky.

I just went to my files and pulled out our ballet subscription booklet
to see what's going on with the name. For the purposes of this thread,
it's a good thing that I haven't cleaned out my files since I have our
ballet subscription brochures for the past three years. In both the
'04-'05 and the '05-'06 booklets, the company is listed as the Kirov
Ballet of the Mariinsky Theater. In the current booklet, they're simply
listed as the Kirov Ballet. The phrase "of the Mariinsky Theater" is
omitted completely.

Don't dismiss this use of Kirov rather than Mariinsky as pandering to
American unawareness. Having been a writer for the Kennedy Center for
many years, I can tell you that issues of billing are contractual
between the performer and the KenCen. Nothing we wrote could take any
liberties with anything that was part of the contract. (This was a very
big deal since I often wrote text to a word count. When I was doing a
study guide piece on the children's musical ALEXANDER AND THE TERRIBLE,
HORRIBLE, NO GOOD, VERY BAD DAY I had to find work-around strategies or
chew up my entire word count simply writing the title of the piece!)

What name does the company use when they tour in Europe?

Karen Selwyn

spamfree wrote:

It is not just the Bolshoi/Kirov orchestras that are different, it is all
Russian orchestras. Russian orchestras tend to have stronger brass
than the more refined orchestras of, say, Vienna. Gergiev, the
conductor of the Kirov orchestra, released a CD of Rimsky-Korsakov's
Scheherazade. Normally this is a delicate, romantic piece, at least as
played by American and Western European orchestras. But Gergiev
played it as a typical Russian orchestra would. One comment from
Amazon put it rather well. The reviewer joked that he never realized
that Scheherazade was in reality a large-boned, Russian farmgirl, as
compared to the usual delicate Arabian woman (usual in the context
of the music, not necessarily in reality). If you could borrow a copy
of Gergiev's CD and compare it to one by Sir Charles Mackerras
and the London Symphony Orchestra, you would hear the difference.
Both are interesting, but no one would confuse one for the other.

Thank you very, very much.

Karen Selwyn

[Cross-posted to rec.arts.dance]

Karen Selwyn wrote:

We've had Evelyn calling people idiots for not inherently recognizing
the superiority of Russian orchestras. We've had someone explaining
Russian superiority by supplying an analogy referring to musicians
I've never heard of. So far, I sincerely haven't been persuaded that
Russian musicians are superior to the best of American or British or
German, etc. musicians.

Since we've had a ballet subscription to the Kennedy Center for
nearly twenty years, I can only use my experience as a reasonably
knowledgeable audience member of ballet to extrapolate to symphony. I
really don't think Russian ballet companies are better than the best
of American, Danish, British, French, or German ballet companies.

The first time the Kirov and, then, the Bolshoi Ballet Companies were
included in our subscription, I went to the theater with great
anticipation. Now, many years later, I am more blase about these two
companies. Attending one of their performances, I can be confident
I'll see a fine full-length story ballet performance that is
technically excellent but -- to my taste -- too heavy on scenery,
costumes, and pantomime.

When the leads do their solos and variations, I can see the talent of
the dancers: Russian men tend to execute leaps requiring strength
well; Russian women execute their steps with precision; and the corps
tend to be quite uniform. But the Royal Ballet, the Paris Opera
Ballet, the American Ballet Theatre, and the Royal Danish Ballets are
every bit the equals in dancing the big story ballets. (I saw the
Ballet Nacional de Cuba dance a GISELLE that was a revelation of what
that classic ballet could be.)

However, if I want to see a Balanchine ballet, I'd much rather watch
the New York City Ballet or American Ballet Theatre than either
Russian company. If I want to watch a MacMillan ballet, I'd much
rather see the Royal Ballet instead of either Russian company. The
list goes on.

So what's the story with Russian orchestras?

Karen Selwyn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

spamfree wrote:

All of mrtravel's posts are moronic, IMO.

I tend not to read his posts since I often share your opinion. I can't
reconstruct why I actually read the post that contained the question
that intrigued me.

I will say that during my decades as a teacher, I developed a habit of
listening for the good stuff in a lot of moronic answers from students.
If I could identify the good stuff and praise it, I stood a chance of
increasing the percetage of good stuff I heard from that student. That
point of view is quite useful in reading this and other newsgroups!

As I wrote in my other post, Russian orchestras tend to be rougher
than Western European or American orchestras. I must admit that
I am ignorant of whether this is historically correct, i.e. were
Tchaikovsky's ballets played that way during his lifetime?

I really don't know. I'm knowledgeable about the dancing --
significantly less so about the music.

Karen Selwyn

and I don't mean the detail that it's really spelled Mariinsky.

Even though many people forget that double 'i' and spell/pronounce
it Marinsky. Have you traveled to Piter? It is an amazing place.

The theater in St. Petersburg went back to its historic name as part of
the wholesale return to historic names in the early '90s. However, the
company discovered that they didn't sell as many tickets when they toured
if they, too, adopted the name change. Now, the company
tours under the name Kirov, although they perform domestically under
the name Mariinsky.

I have the sneaky suspiscion that only Americans are so ignorant they
require the use of the old name Kirov. As you probably know, Kirov
was the name of Leningrad's mayor. Kirov started to become more
popular than Stalin in some circles and so Stalin had him killed. Then
Stalin used his name as propaganda, hence the renaming of the ballet.

Having been a writer for the Kennedy Center for many years,

I am immensely jealous of anyone who has an interesting job.

What name does the company use when they tour in Europe?

I only have an oblique answer, but read the following URLs.
http://www.mariinsky.ru/en/ballet
http://www.mariinsky.ru/en/orchestra