Talk:The Nutcracker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tchaikovsky template or Petipa template?

Who cares about Petipa? Why not have a box with ballets and/or compositions by Tchaikovsky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.2.188 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tchaikovksy wrote only three ballets. A box-list for them would be far less important than a box-list for the operas. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Tchaikovksy for one cared a great deal about Petipa, and in the real world Tchaikovksy is best know for one of his ballets (certainly at this time of year!) Robert Greer (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• The Tchaikovsky template should take priority over the Petipa template because the one constant in performances of Tchaikovsky's three ballets is his music. Choreographic trends may come and go, but the music remains the same. Just as opera librettists are subordinate to composers, so choreographers take the back seat to composers. Ivan Velikii (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's nothing to prevent the presence of both templates, I assume, or is wiki not capable of that? Why not do that, and put the Tchaikovsky template ahead of the Petipa. Another possibility for Tchaikovsky would be to make a single template combining the ballets and the operas as Tchaikovsky's stage works in general (omitting incidental music, etc.). Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nutcracker or The Nutcracker?

Although it comes from a German book with quite different name, and a musical score with a different name, this article refers to the BALLET of The Nutcracker which is always referred to with "The" in front of the name when used in the ballet world. All performances big and small will have their print media with The Nutcracker rather then just 'Nutcracker'. user:pathaugen

Nutcracker or The Nutcracker? That is the question!

Although Hoffmann story tittle is 'The Nutcracker and the Mouse King', most sources of Tchaikovsky work refer it as "Nutcracker". Scores don't contribute to clarify the confusion, but it seems that the most present tittle is "Nutcracker Suite".

Clarified: After writing this, amazon.de shows that Hoffman's story is titled "Nussknacker und Mäusekönig" without the article "Der". Also Tchaikovsky work is uniformly named "Nussknacker Suite Op 71a." So, in my opinion all translations should not add the article, "Nutcracker", "Cascanueces", ...

What puzzles me is that I've just seen that the German Wikipedia page ads the article. Perhaps a mistake?

Amazon.de Hoffman's Nussknacker From this page select Musiknoten in the top search box and click LOS to see German Nussknacker scores.

esqüeze (a reader) 17:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is compounded by the fact that the Russian language has no definite article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.48.83 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Stahlbaum or Silberhaus?

This confusion is actually simple to resolve. In Hoffmann's 1814 original, the family was named Stahlbaum. In Dumas' 1844 adaptation, the name changed to Silberhaus. Lupo 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In the annual National Ballet of Canada (Toronto) production, the children's names have been changed to Marie and Micha. This was done in 1995 and according to the Ballet, reflects the "original" production.

Premiere Date

Is the date given Old Style?

Just added double dating of Dec. 6/18, 1892. Mademoiselle Fifi 13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Trepak

What does everyone think of the Russian dance..should it be kept or omitted in performances?

There's no need to omit, rearrange, or add anything in a performance of this ballet or of the suite. Mademoiselle Fifi 13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blonde?

The article specifically states that Clara is blonde. While this is the case in many illustrations and stagings, is it ever difinitively stated anywhere in the text of the original German story or the play? If not, that tidbit should be removed from the article. -Toptomcat 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke Ellington

There's no mention of Duke Ellington's rendition of the music. Shouldn't this be mentioned?Rokor 19:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Revisions to article

If an entire section of the article that we contributed to has been deleted, can we get it back without having to type it all over again?

More than half of this article is gone - the history of the ballet, the musical numbers in it, the notable productions of it (including variations in the staging), even the photos. (Many of the items removed are items that I did not post, so I'm not engaging in any special pleading.)

I suppose we have to expect this kind of stuff when we edit an online site ourselves, but the wholesale surgery performed on this article is rather aggravating. Why should other articles go such into detail about a subject, while this one is reduced to a mere synopsis of the plot? AlbertSM

I was just now browsing the article, and I noticed that too. I think you can go back into the History and restore from an earlier time. Though I'm not that good with article editing, so I'm not sure. MasterXiam 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I found it. 19:24, November 30, 2006, IP address 69.226.255.69 - That's weird, because I saw the article from before then... today. Just wish I knew what to with this information, now. MasterXiam 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored the text. Can we restore photos, and if so, how? I did not post them originally, but I liked them, and now they are gone from the page. AlbertSM

The article is properly restored to its PROPER form. (Guys, learn to sign with four tildes that look like this: ~~~~ It automatically changes to your user name.) -- A. Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Characters

The most recent change was the removal of the list of characters, the justfication being that "the cast varies too much inbetween companies, it could never be fully correct." This is example of an unjustified, arbitrary deletion. There is at least one "correct" source for the characters: the stage directions in the score itself. Whatever changes are made to the cast is one thing, but to dismiss the published intentions of the original creators is uncalled-for. Although I'm not sure whether the deleted list was based on the original score, a cast list should be restored based on that source (with a citation of it), including, if possible the names of the known original dancers in the roles (as is done with the singers in many of the opera articles on Wikipedia) in a chart. I have access to the score myself, so I might try to supply that basic information in a few days. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Dec 2006

I tagged this article because I felt that a lot of the article is not linked properly. This is due to a large blanking of the page and the helpful, but painful restoration of the article. Sections remain without links; that should be fixed. Also, the summary needs revision. Sections are not arranged properly, or in chronological order (example: history section). These are a few points I bring up. This cleanup is actually very minor, but the article needs it. -- A. Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 01:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Castilian?

Why is the Castilian translation of the name included here, as opposed to any other (e.g. French or Polish)? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The suite in popular culture

Various extracts from the suite have taken on a life of their own. Many UK residents will sing "Ev'ryone's a Fruit and Nut Case!" to Dance of the Reed Flutes, courtesy of a Cadbury commercial for their Fruit'n'Nut chocolate bar; this was also reused in the popular video game Lemmings (IIRC, Oh No! added Trepak). Surely there must be more examples?! Add them here, then when we've got a few I'll create a subsection in the main article. Mittfh 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

date consistency

Is the original work 1814 or 1816? It's written as both in this article (see beginning and ending). Perhaps one refers to an original draft and the second is a more final version by the author?--SidP 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mirlitons or Merlitons?

It is not spelled consistently in the article

List of characters

There are two mentioned as having "speaking" roles. Nobody speaks in this ballet, at least not in any production I've seen - except for the 1993 Macaulay Culkin movie, where the children actually chant "Ma - gic!" out loud to Drosselmeyer. (It's a film of the Balanchine staging.) AlbertSM (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• The characters listed do speak, according to the original score -- but only with brief utterances during the battle scene. See the score cited (Soviet ed. of Tchaikovsky's piano-solo version) or Taneev's transcription for piano solo, reprinted by Elibron.com. Whether these utterances were actually employed in the original production is another matter, but they are included in the published material. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutcracker Suite No. 2 op 71b

There is another Nutcracker suite created by the composer. It's Nutcracker Suite No. 2 op 71b. Although in performance today, I doubt that it has ever been recorded. (Instead, the entire ballet score has been recorded countless times.) Imagine a "World premeire recording of Nutcracker Suite No. 2", which has yet to happen! This is certainly worth a mention in the article. Scetpfe (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• You would need to cite a source that proves that the composer wrote or authorized a suite from this ballet other than Op. 71a. According to the list of the composer's orchestral works at Grove Music Online (accessed today, 2007-12-28), only the Op. 71a orchestral suite is listed. I have heard at least one "other" suite from this ballet on recordings, but I never assumed that it stemmed from the composer. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed a few suites cobbled together that aren't the pubished one. I've even seen one or two recordings with 'selections' that lack some of the familiar movements. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference list

It looks like the references are missing, and using the reflist template doesn't wanna work...so anyone able to fix it? There's also one or two direct refs that should be changed into footnotes, probably. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Date of the Nutcracker premiere

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the Julian calendar’s relationship with the Gregorian in the 19th century. They were 12 days apart.

• This edit summary said: I dont know where 12/18 was retreived as a date for the first premiere. At that time Russia was 12 days behind the rest of the world, so the date is actually 31 Jan. 1891, or, old-style. 6 Dec. 1892
  • If 18 December 1892 was the Julian date, the Gregorian date was 30 December 1892.
  • If 18 December 1892 was the Gregorian date, the Julian date was 6 December 1892.
  • 1891 doesn’t enter into the equation at all.
  • January doesn’t enter into the equation at all.

• The next edit summary said: I counted the days in the wrong direction - the date for the premiere was 12 December 1892/ being 6 December in .
  • This doesn’t add up. There’s no way that 6 December in one of the calendars could possibly correspond to 12 December in the other calendar, because those dates are only 6 days apart - but the calendars were 12 days apart.

• My copy of “Tchaikovsky” by John Warrack gives the date as 18 December 1892. In the introduction to the book he says that all his dates are New Style or Gregorian dates. Therefore, the relevant dates are:
  • Julian = 6 December 1892
  • Gregorian = 18 December 1892. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 October 2017 and 17 November 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M6.8moo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

See also: Talk:List of productions of The Nutcracker

HELP ON HOW TO MAKE THE WEBSITE BETTER!!!!!!!

make the information clear because it makes no sence to me. You should talk about the old version of the nutcracker and everything, then talk about what the new vesion or story is about.

---

And you should learn to spell, and not be so rude as to type in capital letters.

The original plot of the ballet is described on the page. What's your problem?? AlbertSM (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While I am not the above person, I do understand the cause for confusion. The synopsis in the article is considerably muddled with unnecessary explication of plot variances. The plot of story ballets varies from production to production. In a Wikipedia article, a single, concise synopsis of the libretto of the original production should suffice. In the case of the original 1892 production, the libretto is quite barebones and easily recognizable in whatever superficial variations a reader might come across from production to production. I have a description of the original 1892 Maryinsky libretto in Jack Anderson's book "The Nutcracker Ballet." I will use it to go back and clean up the synopsis when i have the time. LondonSword (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New Synopsis

I have replaced the previous synopsis, muddled with unnecessary plot variances, with one streamlined to represent the 1892 production, as suggested by the above commenter. Most of the variances are noted in the entries for the individual productions and are thus redundant. Some notes on the musical structure will be reincorporated into the section on music in due time. LondonSword (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Marius Petipa the choreographer or the "writer" of the ballet

A phrase in the intro about the origins of the ballet says "written by Marius Petipa." Is that the proper term to describe his contribution? Was he not the choreographer?

I'm not familiar enough with the conventions used on WP to know if this term has been standardized for use in describing dance productions. But it sounds quite confusing to me, since it seems to refer to the literary roots of the tale rather than to its (quite marvelous) dance interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.82 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing instrumentation to clarify size of flute section, additional toy percussion, correct spellings, etc.

I've just tried to correct and clarify a few matters from the instrumentation specifications.

I am a professional musician and orchestrator, and have two ballet companies using my "reduced instrumentation" version of this piece, as of 2008.

Clarification of the flute section's size is helpful. "English" horn hadn't been capitalized.

An indication is now present to help one realize that a "gong" is a "tamtam" more easily. There is only one "toy" drum part. It is indicated in the score as a "baby" drum, just as the "toy" trumpet is actually indicated as a "baby" trumpet. Both are indicated in French and are called "tamburro d'enfant" & "trompette d'enfant" respectively. There is also an indication for "le coup de fusil" which means "the shot of a rifle."

I think those are all of the changes I just made.

My source is the newer Kalmus "Covent Garden" edition of the complete original score, which is rather fraught with typographical errors to the largest extent of any score for any standard musical piece of which I am aware. To be clear, it's not Kalmus nor Covent Garden to blame, but the source of the original plates.

EnglishHornDude (talk)

The two piccolos appear in No. 6, as the magic spell is being cast. EnglishHornDude (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of acceptable use of piano as an alternative to celesta

I am a professional musician and orchestrator, and have two ballet companies utilizing my "reduced instrumentation" version of the piece as of 2008. It is the version which Carolina Ballet has used (2006-2008) when presenting the piece on the campus of the University of North Carolina. I'm won't assert that Tchaikovsky made no mention that piano was an instrument which he found to be an acceptable alternative to the celesta. However, I really don't think that there is any indication in the score to substantiate his potential approval this substitution. My professional opinion is that it can be a very effective substitution to make, if it has to be done this way. Mitigating considerations: There are at least four languages used in the published score: Italian, French, German, and Russian. I have not seen a phrase in any of the first three of these languages that I recognize as being one which would indicate approval of the substitution. I do not read Russian, so I cannot certify that the composer made no mention of a possible "seal of approval". Is any documentation available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishHornDude (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, considering how often such substitutions are noted in the score, it's not a particularly notable detail. But looking at a score of the suire, it says '(ou piano)' right under the celesta indication (you can find this version here). The full score (here) also mentions this. These are both, natually, old public domain scores so it's quite possible that newer ones lack it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you credentials to be able to claim make the claim that this isn't a significant detail. Your claim is FALSE!! There is NO such indication as you claim, that there is a specification of which Tchaikovsky approved. Finding a marking in print is NOT proof of his approval.

EnglishHornDude (talk)

I also want to know who removed the corrections which were instruments called for in the score, but which weren't listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishHornDude (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I have located a page in the score where this mention is made. I would still, however, contend that some citation may be needed or at least useful to support that this might be in accordance with Tchaikovsky's personal wishes.

Most editions of this piece I've seen are taken from the same set of original plates, with only certain rehearsal numbers / letters being the main differences. For the most part, markings in any language that were in the original tend to be left in subsequent editions. It is a good bit more common (also logistically easier) to have editorial markings added later by less well-documented sources or persons than for any markings to be removed. I don't think there would be many publishers who would want to "take the heat" for removing markings that could be viewed as being critical.

Apologies for my original tone, above.

EnglishHornDude (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Baryshnikov > Balanchine??

I am rather perplexed at the sections of this article dealing with the Balanchine and Baryshnikov versions. There seems to be far too much useless information about the latter, while the former is almost trivialized. Balanchine was one of the most important choreographers of the twentieth century, and, arguably, it was HIS version that truly spawned the popularity of the ballet after Christensen's with San Francisco Ballet. The fact that the Balanchine is still in repertory after more than 50 years, while Baryshnikov's version has been cycled out by the American Ballet Theatre (in favor of a production by Kevin McKenzie) is not insignificant. Likewise, Balanchine's version has been adopted by other companies throughout the country, including Pennsylvania Ballet, Miami City Ballet, and Oregan Ballet Theatre. Yet the article harps on about the comparative video sales of both versions, yet this is unsubsantiated by any hard facts: in fact, according to Amazon's sales rankings, the 1993 films version of the Balanchine is #662, and the Baryshnikov is ranked #850. Contrary to what the author of this section seems to think, there is nothing very remarkable about Baryshnikov's version. Like many European productions of the period, it is heavily derivative of Vassily Vainonen's version from the USSR. Strangely, there is no mention of this in the article at all. It would make much more sense to remove the section on Baryshnikov's version and replace it with one on Vainonen's, which was much more influential.

---

I sense some sour grapes here. Frankly, that's just your opinion, and if this section were rewritten according what you say, it would reflect only your opinion. When the 2004 DVD of the Baryshnikov "Nutcracker" was released, it easily outsold the 1993 Balanchine - Macaulay Culkin version, and it held that spot for at least two or three Christmases afterward. The reason that the 1993 Balanchine edition outsells the Baryshnikov version now is that the latest reissue of it is re-mastered. And according to Amazon, even this re-mastered edition of the 1993 film has gone out of print - after less than a year! The Baryshnikov version is still very much in print.

This section does not concern itself with the influence on ballet that the Baryshnikov version has had; it concerns itself with how popular it is with the general audience. Whatever you may think of it, there is no doubt that the Baryshnikov version is one of the best-loved and highly acclaimed versions of the ballet; in fact, our local PBS station brought it back by popular demand. That's saying a lot.

The 1993 film version of the Balanchine "Nutcracker" received dismal reviews, was a box office flop, and, in the "Battle of the Nutcrackers" last year on the Ovation Channel, was named the least liked of all the versions participating in the contest.

And as for the Baryshnikov version being "phased out" of ABT, well, new choreographic versions of "The Nutcracker" appear every year. Balanchine's reputation is what has made other companies stage his version, not the quality of that production. Our ballet company staged it for more than twenty years, and at the time they started staging it, Baryshnikov's version did not exist. And our ballet company never even considered staging the Vainonen version.

Our local symphony orchestra made recordings with their former conductor, but that did not stop our present conductor(s) from recording the same pieces with the same orchestra, and in most cases, the earlier recordings have not been "phased out". Yet that is no reflection on how good the former versions were, any more than the fact that the existence of a 1998 miniseries of "Moby Dick" (with Patrick Stewart) means that the 1956 film version (starring Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab) wasn't any good.

American Ballet Theatre is staging new versions of older ballets all the time; they have done "Petrouchka" several times. (Just type in ABT and Petrouchka in your Google search engine and you'll see.)

The Vaininen Nutcracker may be influential in the ballet world to insiders, dancers and choreographers, but frankly, few people outside of that group have even heard of it.

And you should have signed your post.AlbertSM (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello AlbertSM and unsigned. As you both seem to be new to Wikipedia (or at least unfamiliar with the quality standards here), I am compelled to ask the following: Why, exactly, are these sections largely unsourced?? The first five paragraphs and the last of the Baryshnikov have no citations, and there seem to be no citations at all in the Balanchine section. (The former is particularly egregious by Wikipedia standards, considering it makes such claims as "The Baryshnikov Nutcracker has since become both the most popular television version of the work and a bestselling videocassette and DVD version of the ballet. It usually outsells not only every other video version of The Nutcracker, including the 1993 film of Balanchine's version, but every other ballet video as well." Did whoever write these sections not feel it was important to substantiate these claims?) If either of you are involved in the writing of these sections, I highly suggest a substantial re-write (that is fully-sourced!). I would do it myself, but I do not have the requisite familiarity with the material to do it justice. Please see my note at the bottom of this page. Morphological (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantasia / Deems Taylor

The article claims:

"A now-quaint indication of just how little-known the complete ballet was before the 1950's may be found in the 1940 Walt Disney animated classic Fantasia, in which commentator Deems Taylor observes about the work "It was written for the St. Petersburg Ballet and nobody performs it anymore", an observation which is certainly not true today,when The Nutcracker is annually produced all over the United States during the Christmas season."

What Deems Taylor actually says in Fantasia is:

"You know, it's funny how wrong an artist can be about his own work. Now, the one composition of Tchaikovsky's that he really detested, was his Nutcracker suite. Which is probably the most popular thing he ever wrote. Incidentally, you won't see any nutcracker on the screen; there's nothing left of him but the title."

That paragraph should probably be deleted. Also, the 3rd reference, which backs up the claim that it did not achieve great popularity till the 50s, also claims that it was initially very badly received by audiences and critics alike. Which contradicts the very same sentence of the wikipedia article: "The suite became instantly popular (according to Men of Music "every number had to be repeated" )" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.223.81 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the Fantasia quote. I distinctly remember that, and was confused when I saw it in the article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are probably only familiar with the version of Fantasia shown in theatres and released on videocassette - the general release version, which was first shown in 1946, six years after the film had been made. The DVD release is of the original roadshow version, which had not been seen since 1941, and which is nearly ten minutes longer than the version on videocassette. And the additional material comes not from the animated sections, but from Deems Taylor's commentary. The DVD is made from this longer version, and in it, Taylor most certainly does say that "the Nutcracker Suite comes from a full-length ballet called The Nutcracker which is never performed much anymore".

All of Taylor's commentaries (except the one for the Bach Toccata and Fugue) are longer on DVD than on the VHS and in the general release version of "Fantasia". (However, the sound for these sections was so damaged that a voice actor, Corey Burton, had to be called in to re-record Taylor's commentary for the DVD.

And as for the contradiction about The Nutcracker becoming instantly popular, I said that the suite , which lasts about twenty minutes, became instantly popular; the complete ballet, which lasts almost ninety minutes, took longer to achieve its popularity. It wasn't even performed complete in the U.S. until 1944.

AlbertSM (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the DVD, so I will check. I only watched the DVD version once, but I don't remember it being different... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs Substantial Revising

I came to this article in hopes that it would contain a useful list of sources for further research on this ballet. What I find is one of the more poorly-written articles I have read on Wikipedia, with a conspicuous lack of decent in-text citation. The bulk of the text is rife with weasel words (Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words) and peacock terms (Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms):

- "The Balanchine version uses perhaps more children than any other version. " ("more children than any other production" = unverifiable peacock term)

- "The roles of Clara and the Nutcracker/ Prince are performed by adults in most other versions, and in many other productions of the ballet, including the Baryshnikov staging, there is usually at least a hint of budding romance between Clara and the Prince." ("in most other production"; "in many productions"; "usually at least a hint of budding romance" = unverfiable peacock terms)

- "The popularity of the Balanchine Nutcracker could be said to have been seriously challenged" (could be said to be challenged? by whom? in what capacity?)

- "In Baryshnikov's version, contrary to what is often written" (often written? by whom? where?)

- "The ending of the ballet is more melancholy than usual" ("more melancholy than usually" = unverifiable peacock term)

- "Clara is considered one of Gelsey Kirkland's most memorable roles." (is considered? by whom?)

- "The Baryshnikov Nutcracker has since become both the most popular television version of the work and a bestselling videocassette and DVD version of the ballet. It usually outsells not only every other video version of The Nutcracker, including the 1993 film of Balanchine's version, but every other ballet video as well. It is still telecast annually on some PBS stations. In 2004, it was re-mastered and reissued on DVD with a markedly improved visual image showing far greater detail and more vivid colors than before, as well as sound that, if not present-day state-of-the-art, was far better than its original 1977 audio. It is only one of two versions of the ballet to have been nominated for Emmys - the other was Mark Morris's intentionally exaggerated and satirical take on the ballet, The Hard Nut, telecast on PBS in 1992. (Seven Lively Arts did win an Emmy for Best New Program of 1957, so one could say that The Nutcracker was included in that win, although the award itself did not specifically say so.)" (this whole paragraph is complete uncited!)

- "The ending in the film version is rather troubling." (troubling? for whom?)

- "The music belongs to the Romantic Period and contains some of his most memorable melodies, several of which are frequently used in television and film." ("most memorable melodies" = unverifiable peacock terms; the sentence preceding about the popularity of this music need a citation)

There are more throughout the article, but you get the point. Whoever wrote this article seems to have experience in journalistic writing, perhaps in the capacity of an arts critic or somesuch in which a personal voice (POV) is permissible. However, this person obviously has not had the requisite experience in eliminating his personal voice to produce credible encyclopedic prose. I highly suggest a substantial revision of this article to eliminate the weasel words, peacock terms, and incorporate inline citations (Wikipedia:inline_citations). Not being very familiar with this subject material, I don't feel confident enough to do it myself. Morphological (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, what do you think of the state of the article here? This is before AlberSM made numerous edits to the page, and I'd be willing to be much of what your objections to are from him. But remember, not just one person wrote the article, it's a collaboration. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Melodia Chaconne. I actually do prefer that previous version of the article. It still has many of the same problems as the current version, but I think using that previous version as a base and then revising it from there would be a good plan-of-action in streamlining this to more encyclopedic standards. Also, I apologize for assuming it was the work of one person. I haven't looked in detail at the history of the article to figure out who wrote what part, but on quick read-through, it seemed like the errors were consistent enough to be the work of one individual. The first third of the article on the original production is actually relatively good - sticking mostly to verifiable facts. The article takes a marked turn for the worse from there. Morphological (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious - why do you think it takes a turn for the worse? The differences in the versions of the ballet are mostly verifiable; many of them are on You Tube, and complete, too. (The Baryshnikov production, complete on DVD, has not been posted complete on You Tube; for some reason they left out the battle with the mice.)

BTW, in answer to one of the questions, several of the reviewers on sites such as DVD Talk and DVD Verdict claim that Clara's brother breaks the Nutcracker in the Baryshnikov version, and he actually does not. So that is where one of the claims came from. AlbertSM (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

AlbertSM, if those pieces of the article are so readily verifiable, where are the citations for them within the article itself? You do not simply absolve yourself of the responsibility to write proper encyclopedic prose by directing people to videos posted on Youtube (without permission of the copyright owners). I believe I gave sufficient evidence above that the article is not up to Wikipedia's quality standard. Most of these examples of weasel words and peacock terms occur within the latter part of the article. Morphological (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the article again, it seems some new citations have been introduced, which is a good sign. Some of the claims remain unverified and will need to either be verified or excised altogether. I'll go through the article when I have time and see what I can do to clean it up. Morphological (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Productions Way, Way, WAY Too Detailed and Exhaustive!

I cannot begin to imagine how overwhelming and confusing this interminable wall of text would be for someone new to this ballet. The plot of story ballets changes with each production. An article on The Nutcracker should present a good general overview of the work (at its conception) and some idea of its cultural significance and place in the current repertory. It is totally unnecessary to litany every single plot variation in no less than twenty-one productions of this work. No other Wikipedia entry on any ballet goes to such excessive lengths. It is confusing and overwhelming for a reader unfamiliar with the material (the sort of person who would, presumably, be looking at a wikipedia article about it in the first place) and makes the article much too long and unwieldy. Wikipedia isn't meant to be an exhaustive database of information on a given topic (What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information).

I think we should look at the pages for Tchaikovsky's other two ballets (Swan Lake and The Sleeping Beauty (ballet)) as models for this page. In those articles, only the plot outline used in the original production is described. A handful of other notable productions are mentioned (with no more than a paragraph or two devoted to them, and even then, only the circumstances of their creation, the originating ballet company or theatre, performance dates, choreographer, and cast are mentioned; not an exhaustive plot description or a journalistic overview like I'm seeing here). Other productions are simply listed as bullet points.

Looking at the history, I see most of the credit for this section of the article belongs to AlbertSM. While it's nice to see someone so visibly passionate about this ballet, I think this particular list is overzealous for an encyclopedia entry and better suited to a reference book, personal website, or blog of some kind. I recommend paring this entry down to match the articles on the other Tchaikovsky ballets (or other story ballet... or any other stage work like an opera or play). LondonSword (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

proposal

LondonSword may be right about this; I propose to move the offending entries to a new article, List of productions of The Nutcracker. Its talk page would read {{WikiProject Dance|Ballet=y|class=list}}. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, Robert. The articles for other works of this sort (say, Shakespeare's Hamlet) do something similar. Reading through some of what is written in these entries, a lot of it seems unnecessary. Much of it is an exacting play-by-play of the plot of these productions, which doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article. A paragraph per production at most should suffice. Most should look like the current entry for the new American Ballet Theatre production, with just a choreographer, list of principles and date of premiere. Perhaps a note about some of the substantial revisionist reworkings, such as Maurice Bejart's version or Matthew Bourne's version, but the article certainly should not resemble the current repository of plot variances.

I also think the current section outlining all the various alterations that have been made to the score for various productions is unnecessary. As with the plot, the score of story ballets tends to be adapted to each production, with cuts, rearrangements, and interpolations quite common and particular to each production. It isn't possible or desirable to list all of the variations in every production in existence (or, at least, on film, as it seems the article concerns itself primarily with productions available on DVD).

I propose we go ahead with your idea to open a new page for List of Productions of The Nutcracker, remove the exhaustive plot explication from the entries moved thereto, and remove the exposition of score variances in the music section (which should really concern itself primarily with the score as it was in the original production). LondonSword (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

be bold

I had envisioned a simpler list, but you've set me thinking. One could extract each of the current sections and with a little window dressing give each its due. Here's a list of articles to keep you busy from now through Boxing Day (I can write The Nutcracker (Balanchine) as I live in NY and City Ballet will begin dancing it this month.)

• The Hard Nut [begun]
• The Nutcracker (Balanchine) [begun]
• The Nutcracker (Bart)
• The Nutcracker (Baryshnikov) [see also the Music section]
• The Nutcracker (Beal)
• The Nutcracker (Béjart)
• The Nutcracker (Bourne)
• The Nutcracker (Chemiakin/Simonov)
• The Nutcracker (Lew Christensen)
• The Nutcracker (Willam Christensen) [begun]
• The Nutcracker (Emilianov)

• The Nutcracker (Fisler)
• The Nutcracker (Grigorovich)
• The Nutcracker (Isberg)
• The Nutcracker (Murphy)
• The Nutcracker (Nureyev) [see also the Music section]
• The Nutcracker (PNB) [see also the Music section]
• The Nutcracker (Ratmansky)
• The Nutcracker (Tomasson)
• The Nutcracker (Vainonen)
• The Nutcracker (Vamos)
• The Nutcracker (Wright)

• The Nutcracker (Morris) should redirect to The Hard Nut. [done]
• The Nutcracker (Cabaret Red Light) should redirect to The Nutcracker (Fisler).

The Nutcracker (PNB) should probably redirect to another article with the choreographer's name rather than PNB between the parentheses — and parenthetically — each article's talk page would now read {{WikiProject Dance|Ballet=y}}.) — Robert Greer (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That would preserve the hard work that went into those sections, but don't you think that might become a bit too ambitious? Where would we stop? Would we include Robert Joffrey's version for the Joffrey Ballet of Chicago? It's certainly as notable as many of the others in that list. Or Mary Day's production for Washington Ballet. Or ABT's previous version of it by Kevin McKenzie. Or the Gerald Scarfe/Christopher Hampson version for English National Ballet. Or Mikko Nissinen's version for Boston Ballet. Or James Kudelka's version for the National Ballet of Canada. Or the Harlem Nutcracker.. you get my drift. It just would become too crazy. I think Balanchine's version might merit it's own little section in a page devoted to productions (particularly since it has been performed by other major ballet companies in addition to the NYCB, including Pennsylvania Ballet, Miami City Ballet, Oregon Ballet Theatre, Alabama Ballet, et al.; a distinction I don't think can be said of any other version, with the exception perhaps of the Nureyev), along with the Vainonen, Morris, Bourne and PNB versions. But it would get very difficult very quickly to determine notability of individual productions if we begin giving each it own page, don't you think?

I still think this extensive plot explication seems out of place for an encyclopedia, especially since the variations in plot and music are usually very trivial and pedantic. Who could possibly need to know the exact minutiae of the individual productions (whether they include Mere Gigogne or not, etc.) and how they differ from the Baryshnikov or Balanchine who could not simply watch the productions themselves (especially since these productions are available on DVD) or read a review? As I mentioned, no other Wikipedia article on any ballet or opera goes into such detail. Not even the articles on Shakespeare's plays or Puccini's operas describes productions in such indiscriminate detail. The information just seems like arcane trivia, better suited to a detailed arts blog or website.

A lot of it seems to be borderline point-of-view as well, using words like "strangely" or "interestingly", etc. — a sure sign that it might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Also the article is full of weird statements like: "The Balanchine version uses perhaps more children than any other version." Besides the fact that "perhaps" is a weasel word, how could one possibly know this for sure? I have certainly seen many other productions that include as many, or more, children than the Balanchine. LondonSword (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Preserving other people's hard work is not a bad thing, and this is a quick cut-and-paste job (getting rid of other's weird conjectures is much more tedious and a job that I leave to — others.) Common sense should dictate that the Daisy Dinkle Dance Academy's annual Nutcracker is not worth an article of its own, but I have seen the Royal Swedish Ballet's version by Pär Isberg and Mark Morris' Hard Nut, and both use libretti and attendant costuming so altered that they obviously are notable. If any of the versions in the list seem less noteworthy than the others perhaps you could use strikethrough markups to show your thoughts, as in:

* </s> [[The Nutcracker (Dinkle)]] </s>

— Robert Greer (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I'll see what I can do. I think first I'll need to write up a much shorter section on the production history since the original to replace the huge list currently there, and then cut and paste the list to it's own page. Then comes the tedious work of actually paring down the descriptions. And before I do any of that, I need to clean up the synopsis. LondonSword (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have disambiguated the Christensen brothers via The Nutcracker (Christensen) and alphabetized the list. As time permits I'll create shadow articles withiout deleting text from the base article, starting with The Nutcracker (Balanchine), and link to them with a template at the top of each section, {{main|The Nutcracker (Dinkle)}}, for example. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, Robert. I will see what I can do about a general gloss to replace the list (to be moved to another page). LondonSword (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Created List of Productions Page

I created a separate page for List of productions of The Nutcracker. Is it okay to cut the redundant text from the main Nutcracker article? I still very much think that we should consider editing and paring down these entries to something more encyclopedic. It's just not necessary to outline the variations and departures from the original in such detail. a paragraph should suffice for most, with a very general gloss of a sentence or two to note any substantial departures from the original. LondonSword (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why cut it and split it off into different articles when you can read everything here? I used to have a "World Book Encyclopedia" years ago in which the article on Shakespeare had a detailed synopsis of every Shakespeare play. If an offline encyclopedia can have that, why can't an online one include detailed information on different productions of "The Nutcracker"? AlbertSM (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello AlbertSM. Thanks for commenting. According to the history, you have done substantial work in adding to this article. I appreciate your work, and I'm glad you're here. For the record, I don't think an article for each individual production or even separate pages for the more influential productions (Vainonen, Balanchine, et al.) are necessary. I would, however, like to see a separate page on which to deal with the list of productions that is at present overwhelming the article and throwing its balance off. The current article is, to put it charitably, an autistic nightmare. If I, someone familiar with the ballet and its various incarnations, have difficulty understanding what I am even looking at and finding the information I need, it is probably extremely off-putting for someone unfamiliar with the material. Unlike a print encyclopedia, Wikipedia affords us the luxury of creating separate pages that can then be cross-referenced, as is most web content. (See: Wikipedia:Splitting.) It makes sense to have a separate page for a list of productions, as is the case for the articles on Swan Lake.

I don't think your analogy to the Shakespeare entry in World Book is relevant here; it would be like having, not simply a synopsis of each play, but a separate article for each play, and then page after page of detailed information on various productions of that play. Not even the articles on Shakespeare's plays on Wikipedia go to such lengths. Again, I appreciate the work that went into those descriptions, but I think they're a bit overzealous for an encyclopedia, especially when a simple note ("Bourne set his production in an orphanage...") would suffice, from which point the reader can go on to find more detailed information via reviews, articles and other publications more suitable for this sort of thing. further complicating matter is the fact that much of it is commentary in these entries is either unverifiable or borders on POV. Many of references are simply links to webpages about DVDs with no discernible link between the conclusions drawn in the article and the content found in the links. What I would do is go back to the history, copy a version of the article as it was, and then reformat it for a personal blog or website for your own use.

@Robertgreer, perhaps we should consider removing the separate pages you recently created for those productions, and placing the relevant information into the production page list? I realize it's a hassle after having done all that work, so I apologize ahead of time. LondonSword (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Casse-Noisette

We should have this early or original title somewhere higher up the article than the Music section. Maybe T called it by the Russian name - but French was very popular at the time. Myrvin (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)