1
Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes: A case study of a master in arts marketing
Tara Werner
Director, Arts Management Programmes
School of Creative and Performing Arts
University of Auckland
t.werner@auckland.ac.nz
Proceedings of the DANZ Research Forum
University of Waikato
July 2001
____________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The purpose of the paper will be to discover and understand the reasons why
Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes was so successful as a performing arts company in terms
of its marketing.
A hypothesis of arts marketing is provided, based on relationship marketing, and in
particular to network analysis. The methodology used - a mix of historical case-study
with biography is also outlined.
Sergei Pavlovitch Diaghilev's abilities as a marketer will be the central focus, with an
analysis that contrasts how he staged The Rite of Spring, (1913) one his most
controversial ballets with one of his rare failures – The Sleeping Princess (1922).
Each event will be described in terms of the relationship he built with key benefactors,
and the strategies he used to build up his audience base.
Such an analysis will define Diaghilev’s specific critical success factors, (as well as
failures) to ascertain which are still pertinent to the marketing of performing arts
companies, especially ballet companies, today.
2
Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes: A case study of a master in arts marketing
Introduction
This paper aims to discover and understand the reasons why Diaghilev’s Ballets
Russes was so successful in terms of its marketing. It can be seen as an extension of
Garafola’s thesis Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, one of the few treatises that investigates
the interplay of social and economic forces of what might be called the company’s
political economy – those forces that “help explain key developments in its history:
shifts in repertory and collaborative styles, changes in the status of dancers and
choreographers, the various strategies by which Diaghilev secured and maintained a
position in the Western theatrical world.” (Garafola 1989, p. 148)
While concentrating on the Ballets Russes within a social and economic framework,
Garafola does not mention how marketing played a significant role in Diaghilev’s
business strategies. In fact marketing is not investigated in depth within the existing
Diaghilev and Ballets Russes literature.
A hypothesis of arts marketing based on the marketing literature pertaining to
relationship marketing and network analysis is provided. Within the five qualitative
traditions of inquiry suggested by Cresswell (1998, p. 47) the methodology used is a
combination of a biography within a case-study.
In a biographical approach the researcher looks for larger structures to explain
meanings, such as social interactions in groups, cultural issues, ideologies and
historical context, and “provides an interpretation for the life experiences of the
individual….The investigator needs to have a clear understanding of the historical,
contextual material to position the subject within the larger trends in society or the
culture.” (Cresswell 1998, p. 51)
Within the case-study an analysis of how Diaghliev staged The Rite of Spring, (1913)
one his most controversial ballets will be contrasted with one of his rare failures – The
Sleeping Princess (1921). Each event will be described in terms of the relationship he
built with key benefactors, and the strategies he used to attempt to build up his
audience base.
The legacy left by Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes still has an influence on modern
ballet companies today. Such an analysis will define the specific critical success
factors, (as well as failures) to ascertain which are still pertinent to the marketing of
contemporary performing arts companies.
3
Arts Marketing: a network paradigm
What were the key elements of the marketing strategy that Diaghilev used, and can
we learn from, and apply these elements to contemporary arts marketing in the
performing arts, especially dance?
Traditional marketing has been often summarised as the 4Ps – that is, product,
promotion, place and price – and marketers evaluate and adjust these four elements in
order to maximise sales or profits.
In terms of applying this approach to marketing the performing arts, there is no
suggestion that the artistic ‘product’ be adapted or changed, rather than that
understanding of audience needs and the motivations be used to adjust the other three
elements to ensure the greatest exposure of each artistic product, or in this case,
performance. The resulting focus on audience development within arts marketing is
the logical extension of this approach.
Susie Hargreaves, from West Yorkshire Arts Marketing, pointed out in a seminar
held at the Auckland Art Gallery in April 2001 that audience development has been
termed “a planned process which enhances and broadens specific individuals’
experiences of the arts.”
Attendance motivators and barriers is a strong theme – the cost involved in buying a
ticket for example, the difficulty of parking, and the problem of getting to the central
city after dark, especially for the elderly.
However in the past ten years there has been a gradual paradigm shift within
marketing, from transaction marketing towards relationship marketing. This paradigm
shift has argued that despite the efforts of expanding the 4Ps the foundations for
transaction marketing remain fragile. Both Gronroos (1994) and Gummesson (1994)
have extended this viewpoint by arguing for a more comprehensive framework of
relationships, networks and interactions in addition to the 4Ps.
As Gummesson points out, “Relationship marketing (RM) is marketing seen as
relationships, networks, and interaction. RM emphasizes a long-term interactive
relationship between the provider and the customer and long-term profitability. The
most innovative and theoretically developed contributions to RM come from services
marketing, the network approach to industrial marketing, quality management, and
indirectly from organizational theory. RM sees marketing activities as part of a larger
4
context, inside as well as outside the company, which shall be beneficial to all parties
in the long run, preferably also in the short run.” (Gummesson 1994, abstract)
Such relationships require at least two parties - basically a supplier and a customer who enter into interaction with each other. More complex relationships grow into
networks, says Gummesson. (1994, p. 5)
The markets-as-networks model sees the environment not as an ‘industry’ but as a
‘context’, comprising, as Juttner and Schlange put it, of “intertwined technological,
social and cognitive dimensions…(and) the major implication of the social context is
defined by the characteristics of social exchanges between firms rather than the
characteristics of firms themselves. The cognitive dimension emphasises the notion
that a context is not an objective but a subjective, enacted reality, influenced by the
perceptions and experience of the actors.” (Juttner 1996, p. 480)
In other words, the network approach “views any company’s business in a holistic
rather than fragmented way.” According to Halinen, Salmi and Havila, “It pays
particular attention to the connectedness of business relationships and the borderless
nature of the network.” (Halinen 1999, p. 780)
Within this framework it is hypothesised that Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes
provided a specific function within the specific social context of Europe in the first
two decades of the 20th century – as an artistic flashpoint connecting a host of
interrelated networks.
Diaghilev utilised his relationships with key people both within his company and
externally in a highly effective manner to identify new artistic and opportunities both
for himself and his creative team, and for the economic survival of the Ballets Russes.
Furthermore, while Diaghilev may not have known it relationship marketing, the links
he built with his creative team, outside financial supporters and his audiences can be
analysed in terms of networks and network analysis.
These networks contained people in definite roles - the important stakeholders who
ensured the marketing success or failure of each of his productions. In terms of
publicity, it was the critics and journalists who counted and the movers and shakers in
the many salons.
Sponsors were there to provide support, as were his financiers. The artistic members
within the company were also seminal to the creative impetus behind each production.
Above all, a loyal subscriber base meant that he could count on full houses.
5
When all these elements in his networks were in balance, as in the Rite of Spring, the
results were impressive. When he misinterpreted them or did not listen to their
feedback, such as with The Sleeping Princess, the results were catastrophic.
The Rite of Spring (1913) and The Sleeping Princess (1921): A study in contrasts
The Rite of Spring (1913) and The Sleeping Princess (1921) could be termed one of
Diaghilev’s greatest marketing successes, and one of his most calamitous disasters.
Only seven years separated them, but they provide strong indicators to the different
ways Diaghliev built up his audiences and networks.
In the case of The Rite of Spring he knowingly manipulated audience reaction, and
created the publicity scandal of the century. In comparison he totally miscalculated
both his audience and the box-office for The Sleeping Princess, and the subsequent
financial blowout almost destroyed his company.
He made excellent use of the surprise factor with both ballets - by presenting
productions that alternately astonished, outraged, and delighted balletomanes and
critics alike. Much was owed to the star power of the dancers concerned, and most
importantly, to “the adrenaline of a sophisticated audience primed
for a new experience.” (Perl 1998, p. 25)
By 1913 he had promoted the one-act dance to occupy a seminal position in the
development of ballet and ballet choreography – the first to do so. The scandal
created by one such ballet, The Rite of Spring, meant it was and by far remains
probably the most iconoclastic ballet he ever presented.
Diaghilev sensed that The Rite was going to cause a quite stir at the brand new and
smartest theatre in Paris, Les Champs Elysees. He chose not to open the 1913 season
with it, selecting instead Debussy’s Jeux with choreography by Nijinsky. A fortnight
into the season, on May 29th, The Rite of Spring cautiously appeared, surrounded by
other one-act ballets.
The evening's programme began innocently enough with a performance of Les
Sylphides. However, as the follow-up piece, The Rite of Spring turned out to be
anything but spring-like. One of the dancers recalled that Vaslav Nijinsky's shocking
choreography was physically unnatural to perform. According to dance critic and
historian Cyril Beaumont, the impression was startling: “the dancers danced with their
bodies seemingly weighed down, their movements slow and heavy as though their
feet were attached to the ground. Those members of the audience who had gone to the
6
theatre expecting to be charmed by light and graceful movements, and, found
themselves caught up in maelstrom of rhythm…bitterly resented Nijinsky’s new
production.” (Beaumont 1951, p. 72 - 73)
By today's standards The Rite of Spring might almost be considered a conservative
score, but in 1913 Stravinsky’s was music worthy of a riot - a bold step into dissonant
sounds and new musical devices that slapped ballet patrons in the face. One of the
reasons that the Paris premiere of The Rite of Spring created such a furore was that it
shattered everyone's expectations.Some accounts of the audience reaction actually
have a mythical quality to them. For example, “insults and uninhibited repartee flew
back and forth amid the hubbub, which soon degenerated to physical violence. About
fifty combatants stripped naked, and were taken into police custody. Those present in
the audience became divided into two warring camps – pro-Stravinsky and antiStravinsky; many who were not present clearly wished they had been.” (Routh 1975,
p.11)
Meantime backstage, Nijinsky shouted at the dancers while Diaghilev tried to
suppress the riot by flashing the house lights. “(He) gave instructions for the house
lights to be switched on and off in a vain attempt to restore order. In the auditorium
there were satirical calls for a doctor (No, two doctors! A dentist!) as the dancers went
through their spastic movements.” (Oliver 1995, p.58)
Stravinsky himself fumed at the audience's response to his music. According to him,
if nothing else the ballet's premiere managed to instil in all concerned the true spirit of
the music - the pagans on-stage made pagans of the audience.
There is nothing quite like scandal to sell a production. Buckle points out that “It was
an experience, something to talk about. Even Diaghilev – or one side of him – must
have been conscious that the scandal was not without its news value.” (Buckle 1971,
p.301)
According to many who knew him, Diaghilev cleverly and quite deliberately
manipulated the occasion. Stravinsky makes a telling comment: “No one could have
been quicker to understand the publicity value and he immediately understood the
good thing that had happened in that respect. Quite probably he had already thought
about the possibility of such a scandal when I first played him the score, months
before.” (Craft 1959, p. 60)
To ensure full houses he had used a number of promotional strategies well before the
ballet opened. As Garafola points out, “A master publicist, Diaghilev used every
7
means possible to create an artistic and social “splash,” pressing salons, newspapers,
and embassy contacts into service.” (Garafola 1989, p.292)
One of his strategies was to use word-of-mouth to create interest within his various
social networks. According to Larionov, one of Diaghilev’s collaborators, “For
months ahead, before each new departure he arranged for inspired talk to circulate in
the salons, and listened carefully to opinions. Even the headwaiter in a restaurant was
worth influencing. This preliminary ‘provocation’ was part of a deliberate system.”
(Haskell 1947, p.122)
Another device was open rehearsals for fashionable Paris and the Press to attend.
There were sixteen full rehearsals for The Rite of Spring to which many of the Paris
critics and journalists were invited. Open rehearsals to gain advance free publicity
was a well-practised policy – three years before with The Firebird had no less than
three previews in Figaro anticipating the ballet’s success! As Garafola notes, “these
‘sneak’ previews served many purposes. Diaghilev's practise of inviting friendly
critics to observe new works in the final stage of preparation ensured favourably
disposed articles up to the day of the actual premiere. Another way of accomplishing
this was to “plant” commissioned texts in influential newspapers and magazines.”
(Garafola 1989, p. 293)
And addition to creating advance press, open rehearsals fuelled the gossip mills in the
salons. To add this element, Diaghilev had no compunction in handing out vast
numbers of free tickets to those who he thought might be supportive, recalled
Stravinsky, to a handpicked audience of actors, painters, musicians and writers, that
attended the rehearsals. “ With their access to salons, these unofficial publicists sent
news of company events rippling among Diaglilev’s target audience.” (Garafola
1989, p. 293)
He cleverly made sure that each segment of his target audience was invited to sit or
stand next to each other in the crowded theatre. For a start, the bejewelled Parisian
public went to admire the artistry of Nijinsky whilst the young people – artists,
students and ‘fans’ prepared to align themselves with Diaghilev on his boldest charges
into battle against the Old Guard. Like other occasions, he had given the latter free
tickets – standing passes.
Such standing room, occupied by these young impecunious enthusiasts for all that
was new, was placed between the most fashionable boxes. According to Richard
Buckle, “It was the presence of these bloodthirsty enthusiasts in the middle of the
8
elegant occupants of the boxes which was partly responsible for the battle which took
place on 29 May. Cocteau thought the reaction of the two sections of the public to the
ballet and to each other was inevitable, almost as if Diaghilev had planned the
juxtaposition of the two groups. All the elements of a scandal were
present…innumerable shades of snobbery, super snobbery and inverted snobbery
were represented. The audience played a role that was written for it.” (Buckle 1979, p.
252 -253)
As Taruskin cryptically observes, “the stormy responses had been manipulated and to
a large extent provoked by Diaghilev; Cocteau was right to observe that the audience
played the role that had been written for it. A huge press coverage was assured.”
(Taruskin 1996, p. 1007)
While the audience may have played along beautifully, the critics also had a heyday,
reflecting the polarization of audience response. Nijinsky’s choreography did not last
much beyond the season, despite the understanding review of the critic Jacques
Riviere, whose attempt to analyse the dancer’s choreography was unique in the
general tide of miscomprehension.
The concert version of The Rite of Spring eventually gave Stravinsky the triumph that
he longed for. Immediately after the premiere his feelings were still quite ambivalent:
“we were excited, angry, disgusted, and…happy.” He was nonetheless clear about
Diaghilev’s own reaction. “So far from weeping and reciting Pushkin in the Bois de
Boulogne as the legend is, Diaghilev’s only comment was: “Exactly what I wanted.”
He certainly looked contented.” (Craft 1959, p. 60)
In comparison with the iconoclastic Rite of Spring Diaghilev’s revival of the Sleeping
Princess (as he had renamed The Sleeping Beauty) was, in part, a reflection of a more
general trend in the arts of the twenties – “a turning away from radical modernism in
favour of a more general reinvestigation of a variety of earlier traditions that swept the
arts in the 1920s.” (Genne 2000, p. 139)
In one sense, Diaghilev was very much in tune with the times, especially the
widespread focus on things past. The choice of Sleeping Princess for the 1921 season
was the result of his personal passion for the glories of the Imperial Ballet at the
Maryinsky Theatre during his youth. The ballet The Sleeping Beauty in particular had
been a powerful influence on the young Diaghilev and his circle.
Based on "La Belle au Bois dormant" by the French writer of fairy stories Perrault,
the ballet comprises a prologue and three acts, and forms Tchaikovsky's Opus 66a.
9
The story is the well-known tale of the Princess placed under a spell by a wicked fairy
(Carabosse) to sleep until awakened by the kiss of a prince.
But for many of Diaghilev’s supporters his championing of an old Petipa classic was a
total volte-face. Dance historian Ivor Guest points out: “To many, the 1921
production of The Sleeping Princess must have seemed a revolutionary departure for
Diaghilev… he dreamt of bringing back the glories of the Maryinsky…(he) pinned all
his hopes on this splendid production being a success.” (Guest 1960, p. 93 -94)
Diaghilev's reputation was as an innovator rather than a traditionalist, and his
company had a very limited nineteenth century repertory. Up to this point he had
taken careful heed of his networks. Haskell indicates: “He usually listened to the
opinion of Paris (and London) with respect, but this time he had a variety of reasons
for going in an opposite direction – reasons both practical, personal and aesthetic.”
(Haskell 1947, p. 269)
But travelling in this ‘opposite’ direction was partly the result of expediency. At the
time Diaghilev was without a choreographer since Massine had left the ballet under a
cloud after having been dismissed for falling in love with the ballerina Vera Savina.
Adds Ballets Russes administrator S.L Grigoriev, “The Sleeping Princess provided a
solution to the problem we were facing with in longer having a choreographer at our
disposal; and in the second, Diaghilev was genuinely attracted by the opportunity of
showing Europe an example of the old St Petersburg school of ballet, on which he
himself had been brought up from childhood.” (Grigoriev 1960, p. 179 - 181)
Relying on childhood affection turned out to be one of Diaghilev’s biggest mistakes
in his marketing of The Sleeping Princess. An important factor not fully considered
by him was the London audience’s attitude towards such full-length ballets, when
short one-act ballets were the norm. To watch a full-length ballet was a new
experience for the English public.
Drummond, quoting Beaumont says “I think (the reason why it failed with the public)
is very simple: because previously Diaghlilev had concentrated on short one act
ballets. The public was used to having three different ballets in one evening, and they
were not ready for a classical ballet that lasted the entire evening.” (Beaumont 1997,
p. 129) In other words, he underestimated the ballet’s attraction to London audiences,
even thought the cast was once again star-studded.
He had turned to his long-term colleague Bakst, commissioning him to design both
sets and costumes, and wanting him to recreate the ballet in the most glamorous and
10
spectacular way.
The ballet was to be set in the periods of Louis XIV and Louis XV.
Only the most expensive materials were to be used, and Bakst, accompanied by
Diaghilev, searched the antique markets of Paris for braids, tassels, and other
ornaments. Bakst designed six scenes and 300 costumes in less than six weeks.
Before opening night in London, the original budget had been spent twice over.
Diaghilev's actions were most unusual given the way that he always tried to stay on
side with his financial backers. The fiscal blowout appalled businessman Sir Oswald
Stoll, who had bankrolled the production.
Apart from overspending, Diagihlev also miscalculated the amount of hours needed to
stage such a huge production as well as its timing, suggests Buckle. “He had a
Herculean task ahead of him. To stage a new production of an evening-long ballet
would have taxed the resources of the Maryinsky, with its vast company, its school
and its spacious studios. Diaghilev had an inadequate company and was without a
maitre-de-ballet familiar with the traditional choreography.” (Buckle 1979, p. 386)
Since it was to be staged over the Christmas season, and English audiences might
have expected it to be a pantomime. As dancer Lydia Sokolova succinctly analysed,
“I have always been convinced that The Sleeping Princess was put on a few weeks
too soon. If it could have been given at Christmas instead of November, and
advertised as a ‘ballet pantomime’ it may have attracted a wider and less sophisticated
audience and enjoyed a longer run.” (Sokolova, p. 186)
The actual opening, announced for Monday 31 October was postponed until
Wednesday 3rd November, a desperate act in theatre where the bad word of mouth
would have had serious consequences in the box office.
As usual Diaghilev had invited the Press in anticipation of a certain success: “So
proud was Diaghilev of his magnificent production that he (rashly, as it turned out)
invited the principal Paris critics to visit London as witnesses to his certain triumph –
one that he counted on repeating in Paris.” (Buckle 1979, p. 388)
This policy had on this occasion a severe backlash since he had overplayed his hand,
indicates Garafola: “Diaghilev's tactic of using journalists to publicise his artistic line
did not sit well with London’s critical brotherhood; it smelled of compromise and
venality, while implying that Englishmen needed experts to tell them what to
think…The objections raised against the ballet - Tchaikovsky’s suburban tunefulness,
Bakst’s vulgar dress parade, and Petipa’s old-fashioned choreography – reverberated
11
throughout the intellectual press. For the advance guard of the intelligentsia, The
Sleeping Princess was a sort of superior Pantomime.” (Garafola 1989, p. 342 - 343)
Stories abound about the premiere. A staging mishap had dire emotional
consequences for Diaghilev, says Haskell: “Finally the first night, and with it a
catastrophe. There was a sound of cracking, creaking wood, and the enchanted forest
refused to grow, ruining the curtain of the second act. This spoilt the reception of the
work to a certain extent, but its effect was still more far-reaching. After the
performance Diaghilev broke down completely…from that moment, perhaps for the
first time in his life, he was a beaten man, with no confidence in the success of his
great creation. He was surrounded by friends – he had even invited, as his personal
guests, the leading French critics to witness his triumph – but no one could console
him. He was a pitiful sight, and it marked the beginning of his illness.” (Haskell 1947,
p. 270)
Whilst the box office looked initially promising, the public soon stayed away.
Diaghilev had banked on a run of at least six months, but The Sleeping Princess
almost bankrupted the company. By the end of the 105 performances the production
closed, with a £11,000 debt. Diaghilev’s “gorgeous calamity,” as one reviewer called
that production, closed on February 2, 1922.
Critical success and failure factors
There are therefore important lessons to be learnt from Diaghilev’s marketing of both
ballets for today’s arts marketers. In sum, he knew the value of a scandal. As
Gronroos indicates, “the marketing impact of word of mouth is usually huge,
frequently greater than of planned communication.” (Gronroos 2000, p. 269)
In the premiere of the Rite of Spring Diaghilev knowingly manipulated the audience
reaction and actually set up the contretemps through his social and economic
networks. He made sure his loyal ‘bloodthirsty enthusiasts’ were placed near the
fashionable and rich elite in the theatre. The results were clear - the audience played
the role that was made for it.
In comparison, with The Sleeping Princess Diaghilev made every mistake in the book.
He did a complete volte-face, from his usual innovation to the ultra-traditional. By
going back to his own passion for full-length ballet, that of his youth - The Sleeping
Beauty, he clouded his judgement.
12
He usually listened to his supporters and audiences, but Londoners in 1921 were not
ready for full- length ballets a la the Maryinsky theatre. By trying to recreate
something magnificent, he immediately blew the budget. This placed him off side his
main financial backer, Sir Oswald Stoll, something he could ill afford to do.
Both the Rite of Spring and The Sleeping Princess reflect the economic conditions and
decision-making of the time. The first, staged in pre war Paris was a calculated
success; the second, performed in a much more competitive environment almost
destroyed the company.
Most significantly the economic failure of The Sleeping Princess made very plain the
inadequacy of “free enterprise” as a system of artistic production, points out Garafola.
“What the figures demonstrate, above all is the precarious thread on which survival of
the post Armistice Ballet hung. Throughout these years Diaghilev walked a fine line
between bankruptcy and self-sufficiency, an acrobatic feat that left little margin for
experiment and no cushion for failure.” (Garafola 1989, p. 221)
So when he died in 1929, what was Diaghilev’s legacy in terms of modern performing
arts companies? In its striking uniqueness the Ballets Russes created a vast new
following for ballet, and the company’s many audiences laid the foundation for the
modern ballet public in Europe and The States.
Diaghilev created the cult of the personality in the arts, and he was a self-confessed
snob, albeit a cultivated one. The most successful ballet companies today have a
strong personality and driving force behind them; for example The Ballet Rambert in
the UK, or Paul Taylor in New York
Successful performing arts marketers today have a lot in common with Diaghilev,
including a burning passion for their art form, a complete understanding of artists and
the artistic director, an entrepreneurial bent, a penchant for administrative detail, and
above all, successful use of networks. Arts marketers also have an understanding of
their company’s social milieu and in-depth knowledge of their audiences, including
the way these can change.
Diaghilev cultivated the rich and the middle class - the same in audience development
today – and was able to use his networks to obtain money from patrons for fundraising and sponsorship, an aspect still vital for performing arts companies now.
As a consummate arts entrepreneur/promoter/marketer, the first of the great 20th
promoter-producers, there have since been few equals today in the way Diaghilev was
able to commission artists and then follow through each production to its ultimate
13
conclusion. He achieved this by encouraging team artistry. His ability to work
alongside often-difficult creative personalities and get their ideas to work was
legendary. The most artistically successful ballet companies still have these elements.
He had a complete understanding of his artists, a factor that was one of the main
reasons for his triumphs, she continues: “(The secret of his success) was his
tremendous understanding of the artistic world. I think in all senses. His complete
understanding.” (Drummond 1997, p. 292)
He was obsessed with quality, and was quite ruthless with those who did not make the
grade. A self-confessed artistic snob, and yet he was often poor. This meant he had an
understanding of the underdog, points out the choreographer Lifar: “He spent millions
and millions on his artists, but practically nothing on himself. He had two suits, one
grey and one blue, a dinner jacket, a full evening dress, a summer coat and a heavy
winter coat, which had been eaten by moths. That’s what he called his baggage, his
treasure of his life, and he died poor.” (Drummond 1997, p. 292)
Diaghilev’s own “unique” vision ensured the Ballets Russes success and he earned the
loyalty of his supporters. Some of the bonds lasted his entire career, only breaking
with his death.
But, above all, he learnt to successfully develop a self-sustaining financial base within
the elite operatic and theatrical marketplace, with the Ballets Russes surviving from
one season to the next, project-by-project. Nothing much has changed today.
14
Bibliography
Beaumont, C. (1951). The Diaghilev Ballet in London. London, Adam and
Charles Black.
Beaumont, C. (1997). Speaking of Diaghilev. London, Faber and Faber.
Buckle, R. (1971). Nijinsky. London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Buckle, R. (1979). Diaghilev. New York, Atheneum.
Craft, R. (1959). Stravinsky, in conversation with Robert Craft, Penguin Books.
Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design, Sage.
Drummond, J. (1997). Speaking of Diaghilev. London, Faber and Faber.
Garafola, L. (1989). Diaghilev's Ballets Russes. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Genne, B. (2000). The Journal of the Society of Dance Research XVIII(No 2,
Winter).
Grigoriev, S. L. (1960). The Diaghilev Ballet, Penguin.
Gronroos, C. (1994). “From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a
paradigm shift in marketing.” Asia-Australia Marketing Journal 2(August): 929.
Gronroos, C. (2000). Service Management and Marketing (Second edition), John
Wiley and Sons.
Guest, I. (1960). A dancer's hertitage, a short history of ballet, Pelican.
Gummesson, E. (1994). “Making relationship marketing
International Journal of Service Management 5(5): 5-20.
operational.”
Halinen, A. S., Asta Havila, Virpi (1999). “From dyadic change to changing
business networks: an analytical framework.” Journal of Management Studies
36(6).
Haskell, A. L. (1947). Bellomania. London, Victor Gollancz.
Haskell, A. L. (1947). Diaghileff, his artistic and private live. London, Victor
Gollancz.
Juttner, U., Schlange, L (1996). “A network approach to strategy.” International
Journal of Research in Marketing 13.
Oliver, M. (1995). Igor Stravinsky. London, Phaidon Press.
15
Perl, J. (1998). “Design, dance and music of the Ballets Russes.” The New
Republic 218, n 1 - 2(Jan).
Routh, F. (1975). Stravinsky. London, JM Dent and Sons.
Sokolova, L. Dancing for Diaghilev. London, John Murray.
Taruskin, R. (1996). Stravinsky and the Russian traditions. Los Angeles,
University of California Press.