The music director of the Bolshoi Theater decided to leave his post before the expiration of his contract. He gave the “Expert” an exclusive interview about the reasons for his decision.
The chief conductor of the Bolshoi, Alexander Vedernikov, went on tour with the theater company to Milan La Scala intending to become a nonreturnee. Not in the way the grand ballet dancers Baryshnikov and Godunov did it historically. Vedernikov will return to his homeland, but not to the position of musical director of the Russia main theater, a position he held for eight years. He intends to announce it in Milan.
During the Soviet heyday, Bolshoi Theater was one of the main export brands of the country: people from other countries learned to pronounce “Bolshoy” in the original, the authorities considered the theater as part of strategic achievements. Still, by the beginning of the "noughties" it was clear that this brand was sliding toward crisis. Alexander Vedernikov came to the theater in 2001 precisely in the capacity of a "crisis creative manager".
Eight years with Vedernikov has been a significant period, even for such a really large organism as Bolshoi. Several high-profile productions fit into this time: "The Angel of Fire", "Eugene Onegin" or "Kitezh" were talked about a lot (although most of all — "Children of Rosenthal" with music by Desyatnikov and libretto by Sorokin; thanks to the mouvement “Nashi” for a spectacular Hunweibin PR campaign).
This period fit the initiated and ongoing reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater historical building. Now they will argue much more bitterly about these eight years — we are awaiting for polar opposite sayings. In the meantime, Alexander Vedernikov, leaving his post before leaving for Milan, told the “Expert” why he decided to do this giving his appraisal of what happened in the Bolshoi Theater under his rule and what might come next.
— Over the eight-year period, the theatre has become somewhat more open minded. The choir and orchestra were rejuvenated - often with rather unpopular measures, I had to go to court. But now they’re in good standing — and they’re really good at playing and singing.
We managed to return the Bolshoi Theater to the proper level of world touring: the tour at Covent Garden is an opera tour, by the way, for the first time and the next is scheduled for next year - the return of the Bolshoi opera to Japan, a tour at La Scala.
And here’s what we failed to do. We failed to properly reform the structure of the opera. In my opinion, the opera today should either not have a permanent cast of soloists, or have a very small one — and it should focus on the people who are best in the world in doing certain things.
Among the countries with serious musical tradition, the permanent cast scheme is now practiced only in Russia, I suppose, and maybe in Germany, where there are a lot of small theaters that cannot afford inviting stars.
We did not succeed in such reforms — more precisely, at some point they stopped. What else could be done is not done. The Bolshoi Theater is generally very archaic in terms of organizing. There are many people, the structure is self-sufficient, the Bolshoi Theatre is the last to be abolished in case anything happens. And since there is no hurry — why should we complicate our lives? The creative logic of development and administration conflicts with the logic of those who consider the Bolshoi as a budgetary institution that gets money and makes profit. I don’t mean theft, but just this kind of discourse: the performances are going on, the renovation is underway, and — you see, right? — at this difficult moment we need to be even more united and consolidated...
— Are you deliberately rhyming with the national context? Or does it come quite naturally?
— But the theater is a projection of our lives. Knowing that processes in cultural institutions tend to lag behind in politics and economics, it would be nice to be ahead of the game in some points. That is: everything is going on - and everything seems to be fine. And then suddenly it collapses.
That’s what happened in the Bolshoi in 2001: everything was wrong, let’s do it all over again! And for a while they try «all over again». At the same time, no one wants to strain. No one wants to optimize anything - and Bolshoi has two or three times more employees than it should. And soon everything starts to rot again.
I found myself held hostage to this cyclical. But I do not want to play in such cycles.
— That is, your decision to leave your position results of the general logic of the process and your disagreement with it? Or was there a specific push?
— It’s rather the former. I became increasingly uncomfortable with the current administration. It slowly deprived me of powers through multiple violations of my contract - that is, the ability to really and effectively apply these powers. And around the last autumn, I decided that I did not want to associate myself with what was happening, and by myself I have moved away from those areas in which the administration should, in theory, coordinate its actions with the creative direction.
I'm not sure I did the right thing — but by virtue of some disgust I had to do it. And now the number of actions performed over my head has exceeded a certain critical mass. So I decided: I will manage these tours - and I will leave.
— Could you give a specific example of "actions over your head"?
— Well, for example, a person who was engaged in creative planning with me, was dismissed without asking my opinion. And they employed a completely different person - quite odious and who all these years terribly bashed me in the media. It happened recently, in May.
Here is another example. At one time, I said I was taking over all the cast. I delegated this responsibility for a while, but then I looked at what was going on, and I said, no, I’ll do it myself.
There was a big discontent wave. So the director issued a decree — contrary to my contract - that this should be done by the head of the opera company and that the criterion for appointing artists to a party is not purely creative, but should take into account the principle of social justice, giving everyone a chance to sing in turn. And there were so many steps and acts alike.
— Such steps and acts are usually not made in order to be «swallowed» — and quite the opposite. Do you think your resignation was actually sought?
— I don’t think so. The main flaw of the Bolshoi Theatre system is that it is a bureaucratic system. A bureaucrat is the first person in it.
With a normal separation of powers, it may be necessary: the first person is the one who signs financial documents, communicates with the authorities. But when this bureaucrat bears joint responsibility under the charter, including for creative issues, he has a lot of temptations. He thinks: oh, I can solve creative issues too!
Moreover, none of these bureaucratic top managers is far from being a musician. They themselves cannot make sane decisions. And so, they have five people climbing on each ear - and which ear outweighs, this decision is made. It affects a lot of things.
Well, these people don’t understand music - but like any ordinary individual, they are pleased to see thirty-two fouettes spin. And here you go: a huge hernia in ballet — funding, facilities...
And when you need things that are not measured in fast money, but are of an image nature that is important in the music market - or simply having value because of ideological and creative freshness, these people also do not understand: why is it necessary?
Over the last years, all the largest recording firms — EMI, Sony, DGG — realized that the Bolshoi Theatre had had recovered itself and they came out to us with proposals. And they were all turned away.
— But why?
— Well, it is necessary to look for some money, co-financing, sponsorship... Nowadays, and for quite some time, the principle of "we create and they pay" does not work; to make a record, the theater have to find the funds.
But this is one of the reasons. There is another... One of my acquaintances, the head of a district where I often rest, once submitted to the deputy governor an excellent, ready-made project: a waste-free wood processing plant in cooperation with Finnish partners. And the deputy governor responded no. "But why?" my acquaintance asked. "The trouble is," the deputy governor replied, "I do not see myself in this project!"
I don't want to blame anyone personally, but let me tell you, this logic works in the Bolshoi.
— Can I ask a boorish question? Why did Gergiev succeed in the Mariinka - but you did not?
— We are completely different people, including on the structure of talent. Gergiev is a person with a grandiose managerial and authority instinct. Gergiev's power is absolute: he is both a creative and administrative leader in one person. The advantage of the present Mariinsky is that its leader is a musician. The disadvantage is that this is a very extensive system that does anything but plays well in St.Petersburg.
But its passion is large — and events are great. It turns out a kind of caliphate. And in fact, the system, the mechanism are archaic both here and there.
— So, for all that: Bolshoi Theatre after you, after these eight years, is it a structure that has changed qualitatively? Is it capable of further development? Or is it not?
— Since there has been no irreversible change in the theater organization during this time, everything can quickly move backwards. All changes were subjective.
— And what about the "great renovation" of the Bolshoi Theater — did it affect your contribution and your decision to leave?
— Yes, it did. In our country, everything is considered in the context of the information realm and of the political situation. And at some point it became clear that no one was interested in the real fate of the old building.
For my part, I absolutely do not care when the building is bring into operation, if only it was renewed really well. But another point of view prevailed: it is to be saved! And there comes the savior wearing a cap.
At the same time, the people who were charged with the acoustics — Mueller-BBM, naive Germans who thought that I had any influence on this — have sent me a letter: the new head of the reconstruction directorate, Mr. Sarkisov, did not renegotiate the contract with them, although they were engaged in calculation, made the concept of acoustics, being restoring the primary acoustic parameters...
Instead, the Research Institute of Construction Physics (StroyPhysics) was already hosting the site. Formerly, this Institute had built the House of Music in Moscow and the New Stage of the Bolshoi Theatre — a building scandalous from the acoustic point of view! And Yuri Mikhailovich was asked: when will the renovation of the historical building be finished? — And he replies: well, I think we will manage by the autumn of 2011.
This is the main thing — although in fact the main thing is different: there is no back run in the process of renovation, if you spoil it once, then thumbs down. I decided to have as little to do with it as possible.
— But why is this done? Is it for the sake of PR? Or for economic reasons, is it easier... mm... to draw funds? Or is it for political reasons?
— I think, first of all, it is for PR and political considerations. Because some people are trying, using the image of a strong business executive and builder, to extend their political longevity.
— Okay... let’s go back from building problems to what’s inside...
— I think the problems of the Bolshoi Theater are inseparable from the problems, so to speak, of the whole industry. And here, system changes are needed.
Instead of driving money into the opera theaters being on their last legs throughout Russia, we need to arrange them all in the same way, so that there was no fixed opera company. Keep ballet where it is, where it is not - there is no need. Orchestra and choir should be present in every theater. The rental system should not be repertoire, so that the theaters could coordinate their activities and schedules, share the costs of productions.
We need the singers cast there to be the best singers in the country. We need to have a natural means of creative mobility system — as it was in pre-revolutionary Russia...
It is necessary to find an appropriate legal form of the theater. The theatre stuffing today into the Budget Code, or into the Law 94 FZ (the law on public procurement of goods and services. - «Expert»), it cannot step either to the right or to the left.
The priority for people who fund the theater is not the product they should be releasing - but God forbid, someone thieves. Given that one can easily thieve despite the law 94- FZ...
The only theater — in Kazan — existing roughly according to the scheme I have described, is quite dynamic. If an environment of so many of theatres alike emerges, they will develop rapidly.
— Did Shaimiev give the theatre special conditions in Kazan?
— He’s more of a let-go type. That’s what I’m talking about: instead of feeding endless infusions of the current state of affairs, it is better to create a «social safety net» by addressing good severance pay. And that’s it.
As for the Bolshoi Theatre, today it is like the Sviftov state of Laputa: a flying island, which hangs in a vacuum and eats nothing. The Bolshoi Theatre has no environment, no fertile ground where it could draw from. It is necessary to reform the system as a whole. Nobody is interested in this. Nobody cares about anything today.
In fact, when I decide to leave, I hope that this will at least draw someone’s attention to the problems of the Bolshoi Theater and of our entire field, not limiting with the renovation issue.
— And let's have another boorish question. In general, opera is not a dying art?
— Of course it is!
— So, maybe we should realize this fact and relax?
— It is one thing that the opera is slowly disappearing, as no new works are composed as vital a fact of life as the operas of Verdi in Verdi’s time. But it is quite another thing to take the opera out of your life at all.
In Western countries everything is simpler: there is the right inertia, continuity both at the level of institutions and at the level of people. A grandson, as a rule, will reserve the same theatrical box, his grandfather had reserved in the La Scala, and the festival in Salzburg will remain, even if there are at least three economic crises - the administration will find funding for it. Thereby, the government does not have to do anything extraordinary to preserve and maintain the opera.
It’s different with us. The State — if it wants to preserve the cultural environment - has to make an effort. It should generally understand what kind of human product it wants to get from education — starting at the middle level of the educational system. It must realize that if it does not somehow awaken the nation’s creative powers, it will be buried.
The government today believes that it benefits from dealing with ignorant people. They do not ask questions, they are not interested in any elections: they are paid money - and thank God! The state wants it to be simple. But this simplicity is fraught with great challenges in the future.
— And what is the actual situation with the domestic audience - both in the Bolshoi and the opera as a whole?
— The audience is there. But the Bolshoi Theatre has dishabituated much of the people from going to performances! If you have the same people performing the same opera from year to year, and you are a Moscow resident — are you crazy to go to these performances every day?!
This is what I’m talking about all the time: we need a different system of rental - seven or eight titles a year, each one performed eight or ten times. It is necessary not to have permanent cast and to let the funds run free, and this will change a lot.
In addition, for all the time I has been working in the Bolshoi, there has not been a single case of using some new technologies for attracting spectators. The box office is still occupied by a paymistress selling tickets for four «Swan Lake» performances. And that’s all. There are no season tickets. There is no system under which a ticket to the Bolshoi Theatre would serve as an invitation to visit Russia, which would be an excellent way to expand the audience geography. There is neither public relations department, nor marketing department!
There’s a spectator communication service, but all they do is sitting at the windows. Advertising, marketing technologies are creative things that should be done by creative and decently paid employees. And we have only ETC (unified wage tariff system) grade staffing positions and the appropriate salary. And the main lawyer of the Bolshoi Theatre is also ETC rated and he isn’t able to win any court case.
On the other hand, given the crisis times, if there are some budget cuts — it is the money for the staging that is being cut. Because they don’t let you cut neither wages, nor business class tickets...
And on the other hand, if now, given the crisis of times, something begins to decline - then this is precisely money for productions. Because do not forget your salary, business class tickets — do not forget either...
— Talking about money, can we take a little more details? Budgets, royalties, prices, production costs - in comparison with the European ones, let's say...
— No budget for invited performers’ fees is provided at all. There are salaries, and that's it.
Naturally, money for royalties — sometimes inferior to large Western theaters, sometimes disproportionately larger — somehow comes from somewhere, but there is no minimal financial reserve that would have been officially at my disposal. So all this time I had to butt heads about every extra penny.
At the same time, the production of performances is expensive in our country, as in no other country. For reference: in northern countries, a mid-level production costs one hundred and twenty thousand Euros. In the more southern countries, it’s worth half a million, six hundred thousand tops. We’ve had a million and two in recent years, and it didn’t seem like anything special!
— Why is it so?
— The first reason is the main filler of the country’s budget, the State Customs Committee. All the materials from which a performance is made — scenery and so on — are imported. And when you go on tour, you pay customs to export your own scenery.
The second reason: manufactories, producing capacities are a very «kick-back» field, and besides, they are usually monopolies. For example, the Bolshoi Theatre does not produce rigid scenery, but only soft ones. So, you have to buy it at a certain place, quite specific. You know? And no FZ-94 helps here.
Along with that, for some reasons we should have a lot of manpower, albeit cheap, these people should be «in-house» and receive a salary. And in order to earn that salary, the theatre must perform every day as if it was a madman, and this turns the theater into a factory.
We perform many times more plays than «Covent Garden»! But in such conditions it is difficult to talk about new quality and new horizons.
— And what would it take for all this to start changing?
— The goal-setting must change. For now, no one wants to change anything. Why would they do that being on budgetary financing or engaged in "drawdown of funds”?
— I see... well, again, it’s not just about the theater.
The chief conductor of the Bolshoi, Alexander Vedernikov, went on tour with the theater company to Milan La Scala intending to become a nonreturnee. Not in the way the grand ballet dancers Baryshnikov and Godunov did it historically. Vedernikov will return to his homeland, but not to the position of musical director of the Russia main theater, a position he held for eight years. He intends to announce it in Milan.
During the Soviet heyday, Bolshoi Theater was one of the main export brands of the country: people from other countries learned to pronounce “Bolshoy” in the original, the authorities considered the theater as part of strategic achievements. Still, by the beginning of the "noughties" it was clear that this brand was sliding toward crisis. Alexander Vedernikov came to the theater in 2001 precisely in the capacity of a "crisis creative manager".
Eight years with Vedernikov has been a significant period, even for such a really large organism as Bolshoi. Several high-profile productions fit into this time: "The Angel of Fire", "Eugene Onegin" or "Kitezh" were talked about a lot (although most of all — "Children of Rosenthal" with music by Desyatnikov and libretto by Sorokin; thanks to the mouvement “Nashi” for a spectacular Hunweibin PR campaign).
This period fit the initiated and ongoing reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater historical building. Now they will argue much more bitterly about these eight years — we are awaiting for polar opposite sayings. In the meantime, Alexander Vedernikov, leaving his post before leaving for Milan, told the “Expert” why he decided to do this giving his appraisal of what happened in the Bolshoi Theater under his rule and what might come next.
— Over the eight-year period, the theatre has become somewhat more open minded. The choir and orchestra were rejuvenated - often with rather unpopular measures, I had to go to court. But now they’re in good standing — and they’re really good at playing and singing.
We managed to return the Bolshoi Theater to the proper level of world touring: the tour at Covent Garden is an opera tour, by the way, for the first time and the next is scheduled for next year - the return of the Bolshoi opera to Japan, a tour at La Scala.
And here’s what we failed to do. We failed to properly reform the structure of the opera. In my opinion, the opera today should either not have a permanent cast of soloists, or have a very small one — and it should focus on the people who are best in the world in doing certain things.
Among the countries with serious musical tradition, the permanent cast scheme is now practiced only in Russia, I suppose, and maybe in Germany, where there are a lot of small theaters that cannot afford inviting stars.
We did not succeed in such reforms — more precisely, at some point they stopped. What else could be done is not done. The Bolshoi Theater is generally very archaic in terms of organizing. There are many people, the structure is self-sufficient, the Bolshoi Theatre is the last to be abolished in case anything happens. And since there is no hurry — why should we complicate our lives? The creative logic of development and administration conflicts with the logic of those who consider the Bolshoi as a budgetary institution that gets money and makes profit. I don’t mean theft, but just this kind of discourse: the performances are going on, the renovation is underway, and — you see, right? — at this difficult moment we need to be even more united and consolidated...
— Are you deliberately rhyming with the national context? Or does it come quite naturally?
— But the theater is a projection of our lives. Knowing that processes in cultural institutions tend to lag behind in politics and economics, it would be nice to be ahead of the game in some points. That is: everything is going on - and everything seems to be fine. And then suddenly it collapses.
That’s what happened in the Bolshoi in 2001: everything was wrong, let’s do it all over again! And for a while they try «all over again». At the same time, no one wants to strain. No one wants to optimize anything - and Bolshoi has two or three times more employees than it should. And soon everything starts to rot again.
I found myself held hostage to this cyclical. But I do not want to play in such cycles.
— That is, your decision to leave your position results of the general logic of the process and your disagreement with it? Or was there a specific push?
— It’s rather the former. I became increasingly uncomfortable with the current administration. It slowly deprived me of powers through multiple violations of my contract - that is, the ability to really and effectively apply these powers. And around the last autumn, I decided that I did not want to associate myself with what was happening, and by myself I have moved away from those areas in which the administration should, in theory, coordinate its actions with the creative direction.
I'm not sure I did the right thing — but by virtue of some disgust I had to do it. And now the number of actions performed over my head has exceeded a certain critical mass. So I decided: I will manage these tours - and I will leave.
— Could you give a specific example of "actions over your head"?
— Well, for example, a person who was engaged in creative planning with me, was dismissed without asking my opinion. And they employed a completely different person - quite odious and who all these years terribly bashed me in the media. It happened recently, in May.
Here is another example. At one time, I said I was taking over all the cast. I delegated this responsibility for a while, but then I looked at what was going on, and I said, no, I’ll do it myself.
There was a big discontent wave. So the director issued a decree — contrary to my contract - that this should be done by the head of the opera company and that the criterion for appointing artists to a party is not purely creative, but should take into account the principle of social justice, giving everyone a chance to sing in turn. And there were so many steps and acts alike.
— Such steps and acts are usually not made in order to be «swallowed» — and quite the opposite. Do you think your resignation was actually sought?
— I don’t think so. The main flaw of the Bolshoi Theatre system is that it is a bureaucratic system. A bureaucrat is the first person in it.
With a normal separation of powers, it may be necessary: the first person is the one who signs financial documents, communicates with the authorities. But when this bureaucrat bears joint responsibility under the charter, including for creative issues, he has a lot of temptations. He thinks: oh, I can solve creative issues too!
Moreover, none of these bureaucratic top managers is far from being a musician. They themselves cannot make sane decisions. And so, they have five people climbing on each ear - and which ear outweighs, this decision is made. It affects a lot of things.
Well, these people don’t understand music - but like any ordinary individual, they are pleased to see thirty-two fouettes spin. And here you go: a huge hernia in ballet — funding, facilities...
And when you need things that are not measured in fast money, but are of an image nature that is important in the music market - or simply having value because of ideological and creative freshness, these people also do not understand: why is it necessary?
Over the last years, all the largest recording firms — EMI, Sony, DGG — realized that the Bolshoi Theatre had had recovered itself and they came out to us with proposals. And they were all turned away.
— But why?
— Well, it is necessary to look for some money, co-financing, sponsorship... Nowadays, and for quite some time, the principle of "we create and they pay" does not work; to make a record, the theater have to find the funds.
But this is one of the reasons. There is another... One of my acquaintances, the head of a district where I often rest, once submitted to the deputy governor an excellent, ready-made project: a waste-free wood processing plant in cooperation with Finnish partners. And the deputy governor responded no. "But why?" my acquaintance asked. "The trouble is," the deputy governor replied, "I do not see myself in this project!"
I don't want to blame anyone personally, but let me tell you, this logic works in the Bolshoi.
— Can I ask a boorish question? Why did Gergiev succeed in the Mariinka - but you did not?
— We are completely different people, including on the structure of talent. Gergiev is a person with a grandiose managerial and authority instinct. Gergiev's power is absolute: he is both a creative and administrative leader in one person. The advantage of the present Mariinsky is that its leader is a musician. The disadvantage is that this is a very extensive system that does anything but plays well in St.Petersburg.
But its passion is large — and events are great. It turns out a kind of caliphate. And in fact, the system, the mechanism are archaic both here and there.
— So, for all that: Bolshoi Theatre after you, after these eight years, is it a structure that has changed qualitatively? Is it capable of further development? Or is it not?
— Since there has been no irreversible change in the theater organization during this time, everything can quickly move backwards. All changes were subjective.
— And what about the "great renovation" of the Bolshoi Theater — did it affect your contribution and your decision to leave?
— Yes, it did. In our country, everything is considered in the context of the information realm and of the political situation. And at some point it became clear that no one was interested in the real fate of the old building.
For my part, I absolutely do not care when the building is bring into operation, if only it was renewed really well. But another point of view prevailed: it is to be saved! And there comes the savior wearing a cap.
At the same time, the people who were charged with the acoustics — Mueller-BBM, naive Germans who thought that I had any influence on this — have sent me a letter: the new head of the reconstruction directorate, Mr. Sarkisov, did not renegotiate the contract with them, although they were engaged in calculation, made the concept of acoustics, being restoring the primary acoustic parameters...
Instead, the Research Institute of Construction Physics (StroyPhysics) was already hosting the site. Formerly, this Institute had built the House of Music in Moscow and the New Stage of the Bolshoi Theatre — a building scandalous from the acoustic point of view! And Yuri Mikhailovich was asked: when will the renovation of the historical building be finished? — And he replies: well, I think we will manage by the autumn of 2011.
This is the main thing — although in fact the main thing is different: there is no back run in the process of renovation, if you spoil it once, then thumbs down. I decided to have as little to do with it as possible.
— But why is this done? Is it for the sake of PR? Or for economic reasons, is it easier... mm... to draw funds? Or is it for political reasons?
— I think, first of all, it is for PR and political considerations. Because some people are trying, using the image of a strong business executive and builder, to extend their political longevity.
— Okay... let’s go back from building problems to what’s inside...
— I think the problems of the Bolshoi Theater are inseparable from the problems, so to speak, of the whole industry. And here, system changes are needed.
Instead of driving money into the opera theaters being on their last legs throughout Russia, we need to arrange them all in the same way, so that there was no fixed opera company. Keep ballet where it is, where it is not - there is no need. Orchestra and choir should be present in every theater. The rental system should not be repertoire, so that the theaters could coordinate their activities and schedules, share the costs of productions.
We need the singers cast there to be the best singers in the country. We need to have a natural means of creative mobility system — as it was in pre-revolutionary Russia...
It is necessary to find an appropriate legal form of the theater. The theatre stuffing today into the Budget Code, or into the Law 94 FZ (the law on public procurement of goods and services. - «Expert»), it cannot step either to the right or to the left.
The priority for people who fund the theater is not the product they should be releasing - but God forbid, someone thieves. Given that one can easily thieve despite the law 94- FZ...
The only theater — in Kazan — existing roughly according to the scheme I have described, is quite dynamic. If an environment of so many of theatres alike emerges, they will develop rapidly.
— Did Shaimiev give the theatre special conditions in Kazan?
— He’s more of a let-go type. That’s what I’m talking about: instead of feeding endless infusions of the current state of affairs, it is better to create a «social safety net» by addressing good severance pay. And that’s it.
As for the Bolshoi Theatre, today it is like the Sviftov state of Laputa: a flying island, which hangs in a vacuum and eats nothing. The Bolshoi Theatre has no environment, no fertile ground where it could draw from. It is necessary to reform the system as a whole. Nobody is interested in this. Nobody cares about anything today.
In fact, when I decide to leave, I hope that this will at least draw someone’s attention to the problems of the Bolshoi Theater and of our entire field, not limiting with the renovation issue.
— And let's have another boorish question. In general, opera is not a dying art?
— Of course it is!
— So, maybe we should realize this fact and relax?
— It is one thing that the opera is slowly disappearing, as no new works are composed as vital a fact of life as the operas of Verdi in Verdi’s time. But it is quite another thing to take the opera out of your life at all.
In Western countries everything is simpler: there is the right inertia, continuity both at the level of institutions and at the level of people. A grandson, as a rule, will reserve the same theatrical box, his grandfather had reserved in the La Scala, and the festival in Salzburg will remain, even if there are at least three economic crises - the administration will find funding for it. Thereby, the government does not have to do anything extraordinary to preserve and maintain the opera.
It’s different with us. The State — if it wants to preserve the cultural environment - has to make an effort. It should generally understand what kind of human product it wants to get from education — starting at the middle level of the educational system. It must realize that if it does not somehow awaken the nation’s creative powers, it will be buried.
The government today believes that it benefits from dealing with ignorant people. They do not ask questions, they are not interested in any elections: they are paid money - and thank God! The state wants it to be simple. But this simplicity is fraught with great challenges in the future.
— And what is the actual situation with the domestic audience - both in the Bolshoi and the opera as a whole?
— The audience is there. But the Bolshoi Theatre has dishabituated much of the people from going to performances! If you have the same people performing the same opera from year to year, and you are a Moscow resident — are you crazy to go to these performances every day?!
This is what I’m talking about all the time: we need a different system of rental - seven or eight titles a year, each one performed eight or ten times. It is necessary not to have permanent cast and to let the funds run free, and this will change a lot.
In addition, for all the time I has been working in the Bolshoi, there has not been a single case of using some new technologies for attracting spectators. The box office is still occupied by a paymistress selling tickets for four «Swan Lake» performances. And that’s all. There are no season tickets. There is no system under which a ticket to the Bolshoi Theatre would serve as an invitation to visit Russia, which would be an excellent way to expand the audience geography. There is neither public relations department, nor marketing department!
There’s a spectator communication service, but all they do is sitting at the windows. Advertising, marketing technologies are creative things that should be done by creative and decently paid employees. And we have only ETC (unified wage tariff system) grade staffing positions and the appropriate salary. And the main lawyer of the Bolshoi Theatre is also ETC rated and he isn’t able to win any court case.
On the other hand, given the crisis times, if there are some budget cuts — it is the money for the staging that is being cut. Because they don’t let you cut neither wages, nor business class tickets...
And on the other hand, if now, given the crisis of times, something begins to decline - then this is precisely money for productions. Because do not forget your salary, business class tickets — do not forget either...
— Talking about money, can we take a little more details? Budgets, royalties, prices, production costs - in comparison with the European ones, let's say...
— No budget for invited performers’ fees is provided at all. There are salaries, and that's it.
Naturally, money for royalties — sometimes inferior to large Western theaters, sometimes disproportionately larger — somehow comes from somewhere, but there is no minimal financial reserve that would have been officially at my disposal. So all this time I had to butt heads about every extra penny.
At the same time, the production of performances is expensive in our country, as in no other country. For reference: in northern countries, a mid-level production costs one hundred and twenty thousand Euros. In the more southern countries, it’s worth half a million, six hundred thousand tops. We’ve had a million and two in recent years, and it didn’t seem like anything special!
— Why is it so?
— The first reason is the main filler of the country’s budget, the State Customs Committee. All the materials from which a performance is made — scenery and so on — are imported. And when you go on tour, you pay customs to export your own scenery.
The second reason: manufactories, producing capacities are a very «kick-back» field, and besides, they are usually monopolies. For example, the Bolshoi Theatre does not produce rigid scenery, but only soft ones. So, you have to buy it at a certain place, quite specific. You know? And no FZ-94 helps here.
Along with that, for some reasons we should have a lot of manpower, albeit cheap, these people should be «in-house» and receive a salary. And in order to earn that salary, the theatre must perform every day as if it was a madman, and this turns the theater into a factory.
We perform many times more plays than «Covent Garden»! But in such conditions it is difficult to talk about new quality and new horizons.
— And what would it take for all this to start changing?
— The goal-setting must change. For now, no one wants to change anything. Why would they do that being on budgetary financing or engaged in "drawdown of funds”?
— I see... well, again, it’s not just about the theater.
Alexander GARROS, "Expert" magazine;
Alexander PRIVALOV, "Expert" magazine. July 2, 2009
Alexander PRIVALOV, "Expert" magazine. July 2, 2009
Bolshoi Theater losing its wand
