Given that since Marius Petipa and Lev Ivanov successfully produced their version of Lebedinoye Ozero 113 years ago, there seems to as many major new versions of the ballet since that time as the number of weeds in my back yard during the summer. Even the Russians have not been immune to revising this ballet--choreographers at both the Kirov/Mariinsky and Bolshoi troupes made some significant changes during the Soviet era, and of course we know of the famous Vladimir Bourmeister version from 1953 that went back to (mostly) the original music order Tchaikovsky used.

But here's an interesting question: what is the closest thing to a currently-performed reference version of this ballet? In my humble opinion, it would have to be the 1950 Konstantin Sergeyev version, because this version is currently used by the Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet troupe, the same troupe that premiered the Petipa/Ivanov version. Sure, there are adherents to the 1953 Bourmeister version and the later 1976 Grigorovich version for the Bolshoi Ballet (not to mention all those versions done in the West!), but because this ballet is so closely associated with the Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet from a historical perspective, that's why I consider the 1950 Sergeyev version as the closest to a "reference" for this ballet.

(By the way, I'm surprised no one has in recent years tried to produce an authentic reconstruction of the original Petipa/Ivanov 1895 version. It would be a natural production for the Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Mariinsky Theatre building coming in 2010, since the theater officially opened back in 1860.)

In my opinion the 1950 Sergeyev has significant departures from what I understand to be the 1895 version, among other things the Jester (very annoying to my mind), the Rothbart dancing in Act 4, the happy ending and the cutting of most of the mime. I think the versions done by the Royal Ballet during the 20th century have a closer pedigree, they basically were staged in the 30s by Nicolai Sergeyev (the OTHER one!) which he based on his participations in the staging done by the Mariinsky during the last part of the Imperial period.

I'll admit much of the choreography and overal staging between the two different Sergeyev versions is similar but for my taste all the "improvements" of the Soviet version are best discarded.

i believe it is generally acknowledged that anthony dowell's 1987 production for the royal ballet (see NYPL cat. entry below) is the most reliable 'text' of the '95 on the boards nowadays. the biggest problem many viewers have crediting this staging wholeheartedly is, besides the additional work by bintley and yacobson, the presence of sonnabend's designs which take the action from medieval germany to late 19th c. russia.
still overall the production, which is based on the nicholas sergeyev staging from the maryinsky stepanov notations and had the added 'advice' of roland j. wiley, the author of the invaluable TCHAIKOVSKY BALLETS. in particular wiley's efforts led to the use of adolescent/student dancer swans in the first lakeside scene to reclaim some of what's understood about Ivanov's 1895 efforts.
unfortunately this production was not telecast or filmed from release by the usual BBC source largely b/c of the 'problems' many found w/ the design, etc.

Swan lake: Chor: staged by Anthony Dowell after Lev Ivanov and Marius Petipa, with additional new choreography by Irina Yacobson & David Bintley; mus: Peter Tchaikovsky; scen & cos: Yolanda Sonnabend; lighting: John B. Read. First perf: London, Covent Garden, Mar. 13, 1987; Royal Ballet.//First U.S. perf: New York, Metropolitan Opera House, July 8, 1991; Royal Ballet.

it's probably important to remember that the kirov ballet's 'familiar' version has a 'happy ending', as well as any number of soviet additions.

I think I should clarify myself--what I mean by "reference" is that it's the version that everyone is more or less familiar with that doesn't extremely diverge from what Petipa and Ivanov envisioned (outside of the end of the ballet, which has all kinds of different endings depending on if it originated outside or inside the Iron Curtain during the Soviet era).

Anyway, I still consider the 1950 Sergeyev version the closest thing to the "reference" version because of the fact it originated in the same troupe that performed the Petipa/Ivanov original. Sure, there are substantial changes compared to the 1895 version, including adding the jester (based on changes done around 1905), removing most of the mime, and adding in the changes done in 1933 to Act II (aka Act I Scene 2) by Agrippina Vaganova that substantially changed the way the corps de ballet moved, but the fact the 1950 Sergeyev version is still performed more or less intact 58 years later is good reason why I consider it a "reference" version of the ballet for a currently-performed version.

It's got a happy ending and a jester.

I consider the Royal's version my reference.

Choreographically, the Royal Ballet has a lot going for it. A few things don't really ring true for me--Prince Siegfried partying with peasants, for example. The Mariinsky has also preserved the Valse Bluette (how original the choreography is I cannot say, but the music is there) which, like it or not, was part of the Petipa/Ivanov version. Importantly, though, the Royal Ballet has mime, no jester, and the 'suicide' ending.

Having seen some 14 productions of "Swan Lake" many of which should have been renamed "Wan Lake", I personally measure "reference" in terms of performance not productions.
The concept of a 'gesamtkunstwerk' cannot be attributed to Dowell's RB production due to the sets and costumes. It is a near miss only which might have been seen to have be more important, if a near legendary performances had been given to reinforce its memorability since it was first staged.
In case the question is asked, my near legendary performances some of which may seem controversial and in no particular order of absolute preference include, Zubkovskaya, Osipenko,
Plisetskaya, Fonteyn, Beriosova, Yevteyeva, Samtsova as well as many other satisfying dancers.
The problem of recreating the 1895 production lies not only in the choreographic plan but in the style in which it is danced.
Authenticity, if that is what some people seek, would have to be in the production ‘in toto’. modern Russian companies for instance, would have to revive the dance style that got lost with the adoption of the Vaganova method of execution especially when you look at the manner to which it has been taken(not developed) in the last 20 years.
Nobody today dances “Swan Lake” with a technique or style that Ivanov and Petipa in my opinion would have required or possibly admired. I believe the last performances that came close to a style that they might have appreciated ended in the 1960’s.

This is turning into an interesting discussion.

The Royal Ballet version is probably closer to the 1895 Petipa/Ivanov original, but the set design is probably not what Petipa and Ivanov quite had in mind.

I do agree that the changes Agrippina Vaganova did in 1933 for the Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet substantially skewed the choreography of this ballet, but her version was very well-received when it first premiered. Sergeyev took that version and improved on it for the 1950 version that is pretty much the staple of the Kirov/Mariinsky troupe since then--they're still performing that version more or less intact 58 years later! Given that longevity, that's why (in my humble opinion! ) it's my choice to be the current "reference" version of Swan Lake.

I still think somebody ought to try to do a true reconstruction of the 1895 original version, complete with the pre-Vaganova style ballet dancing. Very few companies could pull it off, possibly the Royal Ballet because their version is close to what Petipa and Ivanov envisaged, and possibly the Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet because of their work in "reconstructing" Sleeping Beauty, La Bayadere and The Awakening of Flora to how Petipa envisioned it originally.

The happy ending is actually kind of going back to the Julius Reisinger original 1876 version. If I remember correctly, Soviet-era censors didn't like the tragic ending of the Petipa/Ivanov original, and as such they had to go back to the happy ending, as noted by the 1933 Vaganova version, 1950 Sergeyev version and 1953 Bourmeister version.

The jester character is actually a pretty old one, first shown in the 1901 in Alexander Gorsky's production for the Bolshoi Ballet. Given it this character was pretty well-received, it's small wonder why it ended up in the later Kirov/Mariinsky versions.

Leonid, I love Yelena Yevteyeva based on what I've seen of her on video--I've thought she would do an excellent Swan Lake, and I'm glad to hear that it was indeed the case.

Sacto1654 mentions the Vagonova version of 1933. I am confused, however, by the following:

Coincidentally, I've just been reading a long description of this production in Vera Krasovskaya's Vaganova: A Dance Journey from Petersburg to Leningrad. Here's what Krasovskaya has to say about the ending. The "Count" is Vaganova's 19th century update of the Prince in the original.

Krasovskaya is a little confusisng at this point. After a few unrelated sentences, she goes on to suggest that there was more before the final curtain:

Doesn't sound like a happy ending to me. (Especially the "stuffed bird." ) On the other hand, Vaganova's version -- parts of which seem to have been picked up by subsequent productions -- seems both consistent and quite interesting. It certainly eliminated elements of mime and tradition that, in Vaganova's opinion, were no longer acceptible to "modern" audiences.

Does anyone know whether the Vaganova version has ever been revived?

P.S. In Vaganova's version, Odile is a separate person and wears bright red rather than black. The "dream" concept allows this, it seems to me. Vaganova's Odile was Olga Iordan, a very different kind of dancer from Ulanova.

I have searched for revivals in Russian companies of the era and later and cannot find any. I have read that Dudinskaya also performed Odile to Ulanova's Odette bit cannot at present, find corroborative evidence.

From what I've read, the most significant change in the Vaganova-choreographed version from 1933 was the complete redoing of how the corps de ballet danced. I believe these changes were incorporated into the "definite" Sergeyev version of 1950 that the Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet performs today.

I believe there are three significant versions of the ballet performed inside Russia today: the Sergeyev 1950 version by the Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet, the Grigorovich 1976 version for the Bolshoi Ballet and the Bourmeister 1953 version for the Stanislavsky Ballet (Moscow). The Dowell 1987 version for the Royal Ballet is probably the closest thing to a "reference" version done in the West (based on what some posters have said here), mostly because it adheres fairly close to the Petipa/Ivanov original.

It would be very interesting to see if any ballet company in Russia is willing to go back to perform the Vaganova 1933 version, let alone the original 1895 Petipa/Ivanov version!

They don't seem to have been too happy with the reconstructed 'Sleeping Beauty' or 'La Bayadère'.

It's understandable--they're EXPENSIVE to do and the reconstructed version has a totally different dancing style than the versions originally done during the Soviet era. I think we could revive the 1895 original choreography for Swan Lake with little problems, since it doesn't require the enormous expense of re-creating the original costumes and sets like they did with Sleeping Beauty or Bayaderka.

They don't seem to have been too happy with the reconstructed 'Sleeping Beauty' or 'La Bayadère'.
QUOTE (Hans @ Oct 23 2008, 11:50 AM)

It would be very interesting to see if any ballet company in Russia is willing to go back to perform the Vaganova 1933 version, let alone the original 1895 Petipa/Ivanov version!

QUOTE Sacto1654


It has been reported that Mr. Gergiev does not want the reconstructions of “The Sleeping Beauty” and “La Bayadere” to be performed.
These reconstruction reveal a desire to return to the values of the original conceptions which were a product of artists the like of which have not seen been seen in the 20th or 21st centuries. They are the
gift of a real Russian cultural activity that was unrivalled anywhere else in the world.
The reconstructions were noble enterprises in an age when genuine
expressions of high art are losing out to populist expressions manipulated by the media and bolstered by those seduced by the cult of celebrity.
What Mr Gergiev is left with, are ballet productions which are the product of a discredited Soviet era and if he really doesn’t want these ballets productions performed he is closing a gateway to the revival of Russian classical ballet that reflects an artistic expression that has never been matched.
I believe the Kirov reconstructions are the most import events towards the education of what 19th century academic ballet is all about and what has been lost since their creation.
For me ballet is an art that can entertain but is not entertainment.
It should have values that reflect a positive artistic and aesthetic
credo that can always be resuscitated from the damage of a war, a nihilistic political system or a get rich era doomed to collapse.
The tragedy of our age is that it is too far removed from the aesthetic influence of earlier ages because the second-rate is easier
to produce and assimilate.
I would happily watch a film of the original Vaganova production of “Swan Lake” but could not happily watch what I would call a retrograde step of its performance on stage.
I look forward to renaissance of 19th century ballets reconstructed
for future generations and if the Russians do not see this as important, it would be a great coup for ballet companies in other parts of the world to achieve.

"This is turning into an interesting discussion." Quoth Sacto.
I hope it doesn't die too soon.


Ps
I do not rate the Grigorovich as it does not stand unless given
an outstanding performance and although I admire the Bourmeister,
now having seen what can be achieved with reconstructions,
I go for Swan Lake as number three in a list that look as appetising
as a four star restaurant menu.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: About the most "revolutionary" thing a ballet master could do would be an Old, Unimproved version of the 1895 Swan Lake. Back to the notation, and to blazes with everybody's "take" on the original. Audiences are there now which haven't seen the Ivanov/Petipa dances, and can't tell when somebody's being "witty" with the original "text".

The distinction between "entertainment" and something deeper which entertains while also raises the consciousness and spirit of the audience is important. It's also very tricky to know where to draw the line distinguishing them. I hope this discussion adds light to that problem.
I understand your point, leonid. I actually would love to have the chance to watched Vaganova's ideas presented on a real stage with contemporary dancers. But I do not think that time and money should be spent on doing so if other work must be sacrificed as a result.

Question: Swan Lake has been so altered, so many times: Is it really possible to go back to some sort of ur-text? And if it were possible, would it be aesthetically accessible to anyone but a few specialists? I ask this not to provoke or to be tendentious, but because I genuinely don't know the answer.

I believe there is a Stepanov notation of Swan Lake, so it should be possible to reconstruct it. Aesthetically, I imagine it would be similar in style to Sleeping Beauty, as it was choreographed a few years afterward. (I am speaking of the general Petipa/Ivanov style--obviously there are stylistic differences between the two ballets.) Unfortunately, the Mariinsky would probably dance it in its current overstretched, floppy manner, so it would be a mixed blessing.

I think Mr. Gergiev is not thrilled about performing the "reconstructed" versions of Sleeping Beauty and La Bayadere because they require very expensive stage props and equally expensive costumes.

A "reconstructed" performance of the original 1895 Petipa/Ivanov Swan Lake could be done, but it would require an older dancing style (not Vaganova method!) and probably a simpler choreography. I'm note sure if modern audiences will enjoy the old corps de ballet choreography in Act II (or Act I Scene 2) compared to the changes that Aggripina Vaganova incorporated in 1933 that found their way into many modern versions.

Vaganova method and the Imperial style are not incompatible, to my mind--after all, the goal of the Vaganova method, and any training method, is to produce the best dancers possible. The Mariinsky's dancers have already been trained, but to dance in the Imperial style (such as we know of it) does not require going backward in terms of technique. Let's not confuse a teaching method with a style--they are two different things.

Besides, who says that the Mariinsky is the only company who would be able to stage the "reference" version of the 1895? When last seen, it was lingering around Covent Garden somewhere!

Directors love to say "This is not a museum company." Perhaps the time has come for a museum company, which could stage the "reference" versions of classics and historically important ballets, and perform them in ways that would both enlighten AND entertain a modern audience. The ballet masters could fulfil the function of curators.

Absolutely.

The Vaganova method allows proficient dancers to execute the dance vocabulary of two centuries.

Thus you can witness on stage a whole Vaganova trained corps de ballet executing perfectly a gargouillade (hardly a fashionable step in new choreography of the last 90 or so years) a tempo. This is something which dancers in classical ballet companies not having experienced such a broad training method can generally achieve.

The Vaganova method prepares for the present, but is steeped in the past. An important influence on the training methods of the Imperial Theatre School in St.Petersburg was Christian Johannson(1817-1903) who taught Vaganova and who was a pupil of Auguste Bournonville son of Antoine Bournonville who was a pupil of the legendary Jean- George Noverre(1727-1810). Johannson was the partner of Ellsler, Cerrito, Grisi and a number of important Russian ballerina’s in the middle of the 19th century.

Enrico Cecchetti brought the Italian School to St.Petersburg which was found in general to increase strength and stamina in execution.
This was assimilated into the late Imperial style of the Maryinsky Ballet, which survived until the early years of the 20th century.

Correct style and emploi are inextricably essential to the faithful rendition of 19th century ballets both Romantic and classical and there is an unbroken line in the inheritance of the ballet vocabulary of those earlier times within the teaching of the Vaganova method at its best.

It is true that frequently instead of witnessing style over execution we can now witness execution over style but that is not the result of teaching but production.

I do not know about expense of these productions being a problem as corporate funding seems fairly easy to obtain for new productions. Now maintaining them and transporting them, is another question entirely. I do not know how many salaries are paid for each performance at the Maryinsky but it must be approaching at least 250.

You may have read the following concerning the new Director of the Maryinsky Ballet.

“Fateev is not, to my deep regret, a fan of the reconstructions of 19th-century period performance.”Their time has gone," he says firmly.”
Ismene Brown interview Daily Telegraph 13/20/08.

This is appalling to me as it reflects something of a Philistine approach to a company that exists as an international entity due entirely to its 19th century heritage.

Amen to that.

Here's a link to Ismene Brown's interview with Yuri Fateev, the Kirov/Mariinsky's new ballet director, referred to by leonid in an earlier post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml.../13/btdance.xml

The following portion of the interview is especially relevant to this discussion. (I've put some interesting information regarding Irina Kolpakova in boldface.):

A couple of comments:

1) I've LOVE to see the Royal Ballet do a true reconstruction of the 1895 Petipa/Ivanov version of this ballet. Given that several people here say the Royal Ballet version is closest to the 1895 original, it wouldn't take much to pull it off. The Kirov/Mariinsky Ballet could do it but given Fateev's dislike of "historical reconstructions" and the fact the dancing style of the 1895 original is quite different than the 1950 Sergeyev version, that could be a bit of a challenge.

2) I wouldn't be surprised that Fateev has his way and Irina Kolpakova returns as a coach. Kolpakova is a highly-respected name in the history of the Kirov/Mariinsky company and she would be more than welcome to return as coach to the ballet company by almost everyone there.

3) Mel, you wrote "Perhaps the time has come for a museum company, which could stage the "reference" versions of classics and historically important ballets, and perform them in ways that would both enlighten AND entertain a modern audience." All I can say is The Kirov/Mariinsky company was during the latter half of the 19th Century the most influential ballet company on Earth, and I would love to see them revive many of Petipa's old ballets, NOT in the original dancing style of the period, but in a more modern dancing style that today's balletomanes can appreciate.

That's why I recommended a "curator" mentality for the ballet masters. Being a curator myself, I know that I'm always seeking new ways of extracting information from a subject artifact, and that should be the objective of a "keeper of the flame" production. The metaphor is not lightly used!

We do not know the original dancing style of the Petipa Classics and in the case of Swan Lake perhaps the nearest measure today would be from those who remember the Sadler’s Wells production with Alicia Markova staged by Nicholas Sergeyev. I saw Margot Fonteyn dance Swan Lake on numerous occasions with a variety of partners and with a wide variance in her technical ability.
It is my personal opinion, that in all probability Fonteyn at her best, danced Swan Lake in a style not too dissimilar from earlier St. Petersburg exponents of Odette/Odile but perhaps some distance from the style of Legnani.
I have in the past had friends who saw both Vera Trefilova and Fonteyn in the role(s) and gave fulsome praise to them both without particularising a gulf in performance style only in personality.
I would be quite happy to see Odette/Odile performed in the manner of Fonteyn at her best in a reconstruction, but extremely unhappy to see it danced in such a production in the current manner of either Lopatkina or Zakharova.
I am of the opinion that serious followers of the classical ballet tradition would welcome a reconstruction of Swan Lake. For a new audience who had never seen Swan Lake it would become their "reference" version. I however remember balletomanes and fans complaining about Swan Lake and Bayadere reconstructions as they were too long and not as exciting as other productions.

If any ballet company were to try to do a "historical reconstruction" of the original 1895 Petipa/Ivanov version, the way Odette/Odile is danced by Ulyana Lopatkina or Svetlana Zakharova is out of the question--their dancing styles are too modern for a "historical reconstruction."

By the way, the old Sergeyev Collection at Harvard University does include a full dance notation for the 1895 production of Swan Lake, so doing an authentic historical reconstruction is quite possible.

I seem to recall an interview from a couple of years ago in which Alexei Ratmansky (then A.D. of the Bolshoi Ballet) expressed an interest in staging the 1895 Petipa/Ivanov Swan Lake from the Stepanov notations. He and Yuri Burlaka (the current AD of Bolshoi) were considering it together, at the time that they were staging the "reconstructed" Corsaire. I recall that Ratmansky said something to the effect of "It's a shame that this greatest version of Swan Lake isn't performed anywhere in the world.." which prompted me to write in one of the on-line fora -- perhaps BalletTalk -- "Go to London!" In sum, it was considered for the Bolshoi. It's a shame that this came to nothing.

I posted a link to a Ratmansky interview you refer to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle2073183.ece in Ballet Talk on July 28 2007 which the reference to ‘Swan Lake’ and Ratmansky which you responded to knowledgeably as follows (in full), “Perhaps Ratmansky should go to London to see the Royal Ballet's 'Swan Lake,' which is the 1895 Petipa-Ivanov, with the exception of David Bintley's Act I Waltz and Ashton's Act III Neopolitan Dance. It's not as if the Bolshoi would be the only company out there doing the 1895 Swan Lake.

Let's try this corrected link:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle2073183.ece

I would LOVE to see Ratmansky attempt this with the American Ballet Theatre--if he can find the right dancers!

Speaking of the "reference" version of Swan Lake, I'm really glad the Mariinsky Ballet doesn't perform the Vinogradov version from 1988. I've had someone describe to me the choreography of the Vinogradov version and the end of the ballet had a scene that looked a bit too much like the average large-scale Las Vegas production. All the more reason why I think the Konstantin Sergeyev 1950 version is the closest thing to the "reference" version of the ballet, with the Sir Frederic Ashton version for the Royal Ballet being a close second (some would say the closest because it's almost identical to the original Petipa/Ivanov 1895 version).

I first saw the Kirov's Sergeyev version as a teenager in 1961 and subsequently on a number of other occasions. It can only be called a "reference" production for the Kirov Ballet alone, as it is not an "authentic" version of the Petipa/Ivanov original and I do not know on what basis you can elevate its status to that of "reference" production as I understand that it included inherited material later than the origiinal . Please elucidate further in respect of actual choreographic content of the Sergeyev production as this subject is considered important, as shown in earlier postings.
As referred to earlier by others, the latest RB choreographic version is closer to the Petipa/Ivanov production and has a greater claim to being a "universal reference" production than any other current production in spite the two clear amendments it contains, as mentioned elsewhere.

As I said earlier, I would agree because other than a few changes here and there, the current Royal Ballet version is pretty much what Petipa and Ivanov envisioned in the 1895 production. I think if Petipa were alive today he probably would recognize the Royal Ballet version easily.

However, ballet fans east of the former Iron Curtain would probably prefer the Sergeyev version, if only because that version has been performed pretty much unchanged all over Eastern Europe since it premiered in 1950. Petipa might not recognize the Sergeyev version, especially since (I believe) it integrated the major changes in the corps de ballet choreography in Act II (or Act I Scene 2 as it's known in Russia) by Agrippina Vaganova introduced in 1933.

Please tell us how Sergeyev could possibly have known about the Vaganova production?

there seems to be a confusion here between Konstantin Sergeyev and Nicholas Sergeyev.

but in any case don't most soviet versions of SWAN LAKE refer more to Gorsky's first lakeside scene than to Ivanov's?

i suspect Gusev's 'sense' of Act 2 for Burmeister also came through a 'Gorsky' line, if memory serves today's Burmeister stagings look very Gorsky for this lakeside and much less Ivanov-esque.

Swan lake : Burmeister and Gusev after Ivanov and Petipa, M)
Original title: Lebedinoe ozero. Chor: Vladimir Burmeister (Acts I, III, IV) and Petr Gusev (Act II) after Ivanov and Petipa; mus: Petr Chaikovskii; lib: Vladimir Begichev and Vasilii Gel'tzer; scen: A. Lushin; cos: E. Arkhangel'skaia. First perf: Moscow, Stanislavskii and Nemirovich-Danchenko Musical Theater, Apr 25, 1953, Stanislavskii and Nemirovich-Danchenko Musical Theater Ballet.

Does anyone happen to know which production is performed on the 1968 video with Yevteyeva as Odette? I just received this DVD today, but it contains precious little information. Yevteyeva is marvelous, though.

I think we may have to come to terms with the idea that no Swan Lake today is really all that similar to the original 1895 production. Perhaps the general choreographic outline is still there as well as some of the steps, but unless someone takes the notations and reconstructs the ballet à la Sleeping Beauty, what we see today is not a reproduction of Petipa's and Ivanov's work. Even the Royal Ballet's production differs in major ways from what is known about the Petipa/Ivanov version, although it is probably the one that adheres most closely to it.

Edit: I found the answer to my question...in plain sight on the back of the DVD case . It says 'Screen Adaptation: Konstantin Sergeyev', so now I know who to blame.

I believe that the notations used to reconstruct Sleeping Beauty in the original 1892 version could be used to do an almost exact match of the original 1895 version of Swan Lake. Now that Alexei Ratmansky will work for the American Ballet Theatre maybe we might just see such a reconstruction, given that Ratmansky has stated openly in the recent past he does want to do an exact reproduction of the 1895 original.

As such, if you want a version of Swan Lake currently performed that is probably closest to the original, the Royal Ballet version first performed in 1988 is probably the best you can get.

By the way, getting back on topic, I have to make a clarification: what I mean by "modern reference version" of Swan Lake is the version--even with all the changes in choreography since the 1895 original--that has lasted the longest and is still regularly performed today essentially unchanged since its original performance. The 1950 Konstantin Sergeyev version probably meets this criteria, in my humble opinion. (Interestingly, the Vladimir Bourmeister version from 1953 almost qualifies for my definition if the Stanislavsky Ballet is still performing it today.)

That does indeed sound like a possibility, and it would certainly be an enormous improvement over ABT's current 'Swan Lake'.

I do have a question, though--according to your criteria, then, a 'modern reference version' of Swan Lake could have absolutely nothing in common with the Petipa/Ivanov as long as it has been performed regularly and remained unchanged for a long time?

The Royal Ballet's version which I saw first in 1970 remains the most satisfying version I've ever seen --

It had the enormous advantage of being Ashton's setting of sergeyev's notations, with Ashton's own rather considerable and extremely beautiful modifications to the last act -- it is the ONLY version of hte ballet that to my mind achieves simplicity, monumentality, and tragedy in its culmination, and that makes it my candidate for the version of record.

(It also included, and htis is not a small thing, Odette's mime scene ("I'm hte queen of the swans, yonder is the lake of my mother's tears"
as demonstrated here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHkqnIMKjHc
by Sibley and Dowell; "all the story is there in that lake."

I first saw this too in 1970! Getting old, I guess. But I agree this was a very beautiful version.

It's great to see Sibley and Dowell coaching the mime scene, although some find the mime old fashioned (Makarova was particularly vocal on this point), I find it fits in very well with the notion that the ballet is based on a fairy tale. I'm always disappointed when it is cut. I find it interesting that Nureyev, roughly a contemporary of Makarova, was also unhappy with performing the mime scene when he first came to the West, included a detailed version of the scene when, later, he staged his version for the POB.

I can't understand people who want to cut the mime from Swan Lake--it tells the story. A bunch of relevés in attitude derrière most certainly do not.

I can't understand it either. It's not like we are dealing with an art form that is realistic in nature. But often the versions that cut the mime have a dancing Rothbart. I dislike having Rothbart and Siegfried hopping around like two crickets chasing each other in Act 4, leaving Odette to take a quick nap.
Also this kind of "improvement" seems to be a clash in styles, much more mid-20th century type material inserted into the framework of the earlier Imperial
type structure.

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of a "reference" version of Swan Lake but if we are talking about a version that maintains an integrity of preserving as much as possible of the 1895 version while remaining in continuous use for a significant period of time, ABT sure took a wrong turn here. My first exposure to ABT's Swan Lake was the Blair version back in the late 60s. If ONLY they had held onto this and keep it in use it might fulfill something of this kind of reference , or maybe definative, version.

I'm on your side, richard. The Blair was a one-off of the then-current RB version, and as such, was closer to the Petipa/Ivanov than even today's RB version. It compared admirably with Beaumont's letterpress descriptions of the choreographic content.

i hadn't previously seen the query about the kirov film led by Yevteyeva and Markovsky.
if mem. serves this project was meant to be filmed with Makarova but these plans were scuttled when she defected in London in the summer of '70. i don't know if Markovsky was slated to be her Siegfried or not. she didn't dance with him at all that can recall in the london season that i attended at royal festival hall before she defected.
here's what the NYPL cat. gives for info. i don't know if it's any more than what's on the commercial release, i see there is some indication of a '69 dating for the film, which would seem to contradict any sense that the project was moved to feature Yevteyeva over Makarova. maybe someone more familiar with leningrad's behind-the-scenes activity will know more. i can say that Yeveteyeva was hardly featured widely during the London season. Makarova, Kolpakova, Komleva and Sizova were:

Swan lake / a Lenfilm/Sovexportfilm production ; directors, Apollinari Dudko and Konstantin Sergeev ; camera, Anatoly Nazarov ; choreography by Konstantin Sergeev after Lev Ivanov and Marius Petipa ; music by Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky.
U.S. : Kultur, 1984?, [c1969](90 min.) : sd., col.
Motion picture originally released (?) in 1969 as a Lenfilm/Sovexportfilm production ; distributed as a videotape in 1984 (?) by Kultur.
Scenario, Isaak Glickman, Apollinari Dudko, and Konstantin Sergeev.
Performed by members of the Leningrad Kirov Ballet: Yelena Yevteyeva (Odette/Odile), John Markovsky (Prince Siegfried), Valeri Panov (Jester), and Makhmud Esambayev (Baron Von Rothbart).
The first and third acts are shortened in this version.

In Makarova's A Dance Autobiography she talks about this. The film was made a year or so before her defection. She claims she had artistic differences with the director and left the set of the film.

It's too bad but at least she has a recording of her O/O made while she was still in her prime. (The ABT telecast, not the later Royal Ballet film). I like Yevteyeva a lot so I'm glad she got the opportunity. It's heavily cut though, I want to say that all of the acts are shortened, not just 1 and 3 but I haven't seen the film in a year or two and don't trust my memory.

I just watched it yesterday--all of the acts are shortened.

i have not seen the NYPL print of the SWAN LAKE w/ yevteyeva noted here, what i posted from the NYPL cat. is for its copy, i suppose it's just possible that the version it owns is longer than the one released on home video.
it's also possible that the NYPL notes are inaccurate.
i mostly posted this data to give the credits that were being sought.