Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On Meaning in Nutcracker

On Meaning in Nutcracker ON MEANING IN NUTCRACKER Roland John Wiley has Nutcracker earned for itself such a secure place in repertoires and in the hearts of audiences that the problems it faced in its first production, and the criticisms it generated then, have dimmed to the point of being matters of specialist concern. They are a practical concern for the producer who would mount the work on the basis of the libretto published in 1892, for that libretto, as we shall observe, is flawed. The original collaborators, for reasons that are now unclear, nevertheless proceeded without amending it. Perhaps Ivan Vsevolozhsky, who had a hand in choosing the subject matter of the ballet and who drew its costume designs, was under pressure to produce something new in his other capacity as Director of Imperial Theatres. One can likewise only speculate why Marius Petipa, 73 years old at the time, withdrew from the production. Perhaps he was in fact ill, as he claimed; perhaps the realization of the libretto's flaws made illness prudent. But the most inexplicable question is why the fastidious Tchaikovsky continued work, for soon after beginning to compose he found the prospect of completing the ballet so vexing as http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Dance Research Edinburgh University Press

On Meaning in Nutcracker

Wiley, Roland John
Dance Research , Volume 3 (1): 3 – Apr 1, 1984
Download PDF
26 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/edinburgh-university-press/on-meaning-in-nutcracker-PCcjInACnx

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Copyright
©© 1984 Society for Dance Research
ISSN
0264-2875
eISSN
1750-0095
DOI
10.2307/1290584
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ON MEANING IN NUTCRACKER Roland John Wiley has Nutcracker earned for itself such a secure place in repertoires and in the hearts of audiences that the problems it faced in its first production, and the criticisms it generated then, have dimmed to the point of being matters of specialist concern. They are a practical concern for the producer who would mount the work on the basis of the libretto published in 1892, for that libretto, as we shall observe, is flawed. The original collaborators, for reasons that are now unclear, nevertheless proceeded without amending it. Perhaps Ivan Vsevolozhsky, who had a hand in choosing the subject matter of the ballet and who drew its costume designs, was under pressure to produce something new in his other capacity as Director of Imperial Theatres. One can likewise only speculate why Marius Petipa, 73 years old at the time, withdrew from the production. Perhaps he was in fact ill, as he claimed; perhaps the realization of the libretto's flaws made illness prudent. But the most inexplicable question is why the fastidious Tchaikovsky continued work, for soon after beginning to compose he found the prospect of completing the ballet so vexing as

Journal

Dance Research – Edinburgh University Press

Published: Apr 1, 1984

There are no references for this article.