Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Balanchine's will


Recommended Posts

Not all of Balanchine's ballets came to their present owners through his will -- some (I think) were given away during his lifetime...

But first of all, is there a list anywhere of who owns what now?

Secondly, it would be good if it were annotated, with indications of how the transactions took place, and if anybody'y already left a ballet to a third party.

THis could be a ph d thesis, I guess -- but probably the research has already been done.

Link to comment

John Taras, who never participated in the Trust, had rights to Symphony in C, which he in turn left to SAB.

I have a foggy memory of a friend saying that she read GB's will online. I couldn't find it. Dale Harris' papers, left to New York Public Library, include a copy of GB's LW&T (near top of pg. 16, box 19, folder 1). http://www.nypl.org/research/lpa/dan/pdf/danHarris.pdf

Also, I turned up this page (but no others) listing Barbara Horgan and Karin Anny Hannelore [von Aroldingen] Gewirtz as Trustees of some ballets, and Patricia McBride as Settlor of Tarantella. I have no idea whether the royalties go to a pool administered by the Trust or to the individual heir.

Link to comment

According to Francia Russell, Balanchine willed the rights to "Symphony in C" to a woman with whom he worked closely -- I can't remember who, but it wasn't Barbara Horgan -- who gave them to Taras. Russell had to get special permission to stage the version of the finale of "Symphony in C" that she knew for a PNB gala, because Taras had a single version that he insisted on until he died.

Link to comment

I recall reading something right at the time of his death, and think I remember Von Aroldingen got maybe five of them, but this is relying on just that one memory. I believe I heard her say something about this on a video (it may be on 6 Balanchine Ballerinas--no, that's not it, she's not one of the 6, can't remember where I saw it, she was teaching in a studio in it). Someone recently discussing something about Farrell said she was left two or three, didnt' they? The usual suspects will know for sure, I'm just putting this here to see if I remembered anything correctly.

Link to comment

Farrell was, I believe, given three, including Thais [this is misremembered - it should actually be Meditation, see carbro's next post!], which she performed after leaving NYCB. Anyone know the other two?

Also, Helene, I'm curious, what was the version that Taras insisted on?

I recall reading something right at the time of his death, and think I remember Von Aroldingen got maybe five of them, but this is relying on just that one memory. I believe I heard her say something about this on a video (it may be on 6 Balanchine Ballerinas--no, that's not it, she's not one of the 6, can't remember where I saw it, she was teaching in a studio in it). Someone recently discussing something about Farrell said she was left two or three, didnt' they? The usual suspects will know for sure, I'm just putting this here to see if I remembered anything correctly.
Link to comment
Farrell was, I believe, given three, including Thais, which she performed after leaving NYCB. Anyone know the other two?
I'm pretty sure Meditation was one (is that what you're referring to? I never heard of a Thais by Balanchine.) I know she staged it for her company's first season, but as far as I know, the performing phase of Farrell's career ended when she left NYCB. I believe that she also has Don Quixote.
Link to comment

You're entirely correct, it is Meditation. Serves me right for misremembrance!

In her autobiography, Farrell referred to performing Meditation with Mejia at several places in the US after leaving NYCB in the 70s. She was looking for repertory for one-off engagements and had contacted the NYCB to see whether being 'given' the ballet meant that she could indeed dance it wherever she pleased.

Farrell was, I believe, given three, including Thais, which she performed after leaving NYCB. Anyone know the other two?
I'm pretty sure Meditation was one (is that what you're referring to? I never heard of a Thais by Balanchine.) I know she staged it for her company's first season, but as far as I know, the performing phase of Farrell's career ended when she left NYCB. I believe that she also has Don Quixote.

Link to comment

"Thais" is a reasonable mistake, since the "Meditation" from Massenet's opera Thais is the most famous piece of music by that name, and also because it's served as the score for several ballets, including a beautiful and famous one by Frederick Ashton.

But Balanchine's Meditation is set to OTHER music, to Tchaiukovsky's "Memory of a beloved place" (to give it the English title) and not to the excerpt from Thais.

You're entirely correct, it is Meditation. Serves me right for misremembrance!

In her autobiography, Farrell referred to performing Meditation with Mejia at several places in the US after leaving NYCB in the 70s. She was looking for repertory for one-off engagements and had contacted the NYCB to see whether being 'given' the ballet meant that she could indeed dance it wherever she pleased.

Farrell was, I believe, given three, including Thais, which she performed after leaving NYCB. Anyone know the other two?
I'm pretty sure Meditation was one (is that what you're referring to? I never heard of a Thais by Balanchine.) I know she staged it for her company's first season, but as far as I know, the performing phase of Farrell's career ended when she left NYCB. I believe that she also has Don Quixote.

Link to comment
According to Francia Russell, Balanchine willed the rights to "Symphony in C" to a woman with whom he worked closely -- I can't remember who, but it wasn't Barbara Horgan -- who gave them to Taras. Russell had to get special permission to stage the version of the finale of "Symphony in C" that she knew for a PNB gala, because Taras had a single version that he insisted on until he died.

In the following discussion (by the way, what a wealth of information in our archives ;-) ), Dale wrote that:

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...st&p=108370

John Taras was given the rights by Betty Cage, who had been left the ballet by Balanchine. She gave it to him because he was instrumental in reviving the ballet. He is not part of the Balanchine Trust. But I don't know if Palais has a different owner.

and Manhattnik added:

Le Palais de Crystal isn't mentioned specifically in Balanchine's will, which, as noted, gave rights to Symphony in C to Betty Cage.

The will clearly divides all unspecified assets evenly between Barbara Horgan and Karin von Aroldingen, so I imagine the fate of Palais de Crystal is in their hands, unless it could be proved that Balanchine created the ballet under some sort of "work for hire" contract, in which case perhaps the POB "owns" the ballet. I know European laws on intellectual property rights are a bit more complicated than US ones.

Link to comment
Also, Helene, I'm curious, what was the version that Taras insisted on?

I couldn't remember off the top of my head, but I posted on it when Russell made the comment in 2004:

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...taras++symphony

Russell spoke about John Taras, who was gifted the rights to the ballet by Betty Cage, who Russell said, "should go down in history as a heroine of dance in America." Taras refused to join the Trust and insisted on his own version, claiming that he remembered the 1948 version," although he didn't recall it when they tried to revive it when she was affiliated with NYCB. (Russell was quick to point out that he agreed to let Russell stage her version of the Fourth Movement for the opening of McCaw Hall, and he didn't charge for it.) Russell said that she just couldn't do his version. One of the obvious things she pointed out was that in the Fourth Momement, each line does a quick, high develope in succession, while Taras insisted that they all do it together. One thing that should be of interest to NYCB fans: Russell said that Peter Martins told her that Taras insisted on his version for NYCB. Martins said that "all of his dancers were crying," and if they couldn't do the version they all knew and had performed [including the night of Balanchine's death] he would pull the ballet out of the rep. (If there was a "respect" icon, I'd put it here.) As it turned out, Taras died in time for Russell and Stowell to stage the ballet using their version for their final season, for which Taras would not give permission while he was alive. (Theme and Variations replaced it temporarily on the schedule.)

Re-reading Russell's description, I am :lol: that I did not remember it was Cage. When I heard Russell describe this, I wished that Cage had just given Taras the royalties for life, not the rights.

Link to comment

Paul's original question must have an answer somewhere, but meanwhile, for what it's worth, the 1996 edition of Balanchine/A Biography, by Bernard Taper (first published in 1984), includes "a New Epilogue" of some eighteen pages, "Choreographing the Future", which includes a discussion of Balanchine's will, signed in 1978, five years before his death (and thus before he stopped making ballets). (Taper also contributed an article, "Balanchine's Will", to the Summer 1995 issue of Ballet Review, which might have some of the same information, but my life is so much in boxes these years, I don't even know if I have a copy). Taper's Epilogue also discusses the establishment of the Balanchine Trust, the Interpreter's Archive, and so on. Obviously ballets were given from one person to another outside the will, others were made afterward, or not mentioned in it in the first place, but I think it covers most of the situation.

Anyway, briefly, Mme. Hermine is right: "The will, when unsealed, specified 113 ballets, to be distributed to 14 legatees. Not all the ballets named were still extant. Possibly seventy-five were still available for performance...

"The three principal legatees... were Tanaquil Le Clercq, Karin von Aroldingen, and Barbara Horgan. About seventy percent of the rights were willed to them... Horgan and von Aroldingen were to share... all rights to those ballets not specified in [his will]. There were thirteen such late works...

"... to Tanaquil Le Clercq he gave the American performance royalty rights to eighty-five ballets, of which perhaps sixty were still actually viable."

Taper's discussion of Balanchine's will does not include a complete list of the ballets mentioned in it but confirms the discussion here so far in respect of Symphony in C, the three ballets willed to Farrell, and the sharing of rights to the unspecified ballets, such as Palais de Cristal (which Taper doesn't mention here either).

Link to comment

:lol: I was under the impression that an Executor is not allowed to be a beneficary of a will. So how does that work in the case of Barbara Horgan, who in different articles is stated as both.

Another point again concerning information on the Web (if it is reliable) states that the two initial founders of the Balanchine Foundation, were former associates of George Balanchine. Does that mean they were not his associates at the time of his death ? I do not have any books on him to check up. But I cannot find a mention of who they were. But there is mention of Barbara Horgan regarding the Foundation and Trust.

Link to comment

In the US, executors of a will are often beneficiaries (spouses, children). Besides, the executor of the trust (which was not stipulated in Balanchine's will but an entity established afterwards by some [not all] of the beneficiaries) is not necessarily the same as the executor of the will.

In her autobiography, Farrell referred to performing Meditation with Mejia at several places in the US after leaving NYCB in the 70s. She was looking for repertory for one-off engagements and had contacted the NYCB to see whether being 'given' the ballet meant that she could indeed dance it wherever she pleased.
Ah, I'd forgotten. Thanks for your correction, emilienne. We're even! :lol:
Link to comment

You're right, Nanarina, Ms. Horgan is a beneficiary, she's given something in the will, along with the others, and she was also executor. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know much about the legal limitations placed on the executor, but from my experience executing a will and writing my own, I can say that the execution of a will is closely supervised by the appropriate court, down to requiring receipts showing what assets you collected and who you gave them to, and that the executor of an American's will must be an American (my first choice of executor happened to be Canadian) but there didn't seem to be any problem with his being a beneficiary, probably because of the close supervision by the court. So maybe this part is where you've got the wrong impression.

As to the George Balanchine Foundation, it keeps getting mixed up in people's minds with the George Balanchine Trust, founded, according to Taper again, on the advice of Balanchine's estate's lawyer, by Barbara Horgan and Karin von Aroldingen, two of Balanchine's "associates" -- his longtime personal assistant and a longtime personal confidant, I believe -- to create "a centralized entity", in place of the fourteen legatees, [which] "could facilitate the licensing of the ballets, foster their dissemination throughout the world, and make sure that performances would be authentic and of satisfactory quality. Patricia McBride and Rosemary Dunleavy joined Horgan and von Aroldingen in the trust. Tanaquil Le Clercq chose not to do so, but asked Horgan, as trustee-administrator. to represent her. Some of the other legatees have done the same. The trust went into effect on March 30, 1987. ..." So it's the Trust which controls the public performances of most of Balanchine's ballets, although of course this practice bears on preservation in the sense that a ballet scarcely exists if it isn't performed, and performed authentically. (My understanding is that a few, like Apollo, are so old, his rights ran out long ago, but I may be wrong.)

The George Balanchine Foundation, on the other hand, predates the Trust (Taper doesn't say when it was founded, but he says Horgan was president) but was "rather quiescent" until 1994 when it was funded by Nancy Reynolds with $1.75 million to "retrieve, document, and preserve Balanchine's work", for example, by bringing in some of Balanchine's dancers, then retired, to teach parts of his ballets to younger dancers, and to teach and demonstrate "crucial aspects of the Balanchine style and technique". All this would be videotaped; the ballet fragments can be seen in some repositories around the country (the world?), and some of the technique "essays" were released commercially by Nonesuch. So the Foundation is concerned more with preservation, rather than control.

(Thanks for your post, Nanarina; I used to think Reynolds founded the Foundation, but thanks to you, I read this section of Taper's book and learned better!)

Link to comment

:thumbsup: Thank you so much Jack for looking up the details you posted.I had a vague idea about the diffferences between the Balanchine Foundation and Trust. It does seem to be very strictly controlled within their admionistration and mission statements, perhaps this is why they are so non flexible about the performance or accessibility of Balanchine works. It does seem wrong though that their (?) actions on YouTube if it is them who are causing removal of people's sites which contain totally unrelated work. I found this has affected my own YouTube playlists, as some of the videos I had on there were from Ket. and have also been removed (Marinsky Etudes).

According to the law in the UK regarding wills, evidently a person can be an Executor, and also a beneficiary, only if certain words are used in the details of the will stating this.But you are not allowed to witness a will. Also you do not have to use a court to oversee the estate. The Executor may have to obtain letters of Administration, or obtain probate. This can be by using a Soliciter or by going to the Probate Dept personally. When my Mother died 4 years ago I was able to sort her estate out myself, as her Soliciter had covered all eventualities in the writing of the will and it's witnesses.

Thank you so much again, enjoy your Ballet.

Link to comment

One reason why a "centralized entity" is counseled, but not actually required, in American wills is the access to that entity by a surrogate or other court having jurisdiction over the estate. They also like, but again, do not require, that witnesses live within about 50 miles of one another, for the same reason. I found this out when making my own first will (at age 23!) when I was in the Air Force. Later on, as a researcher, I found several examples of that system breaking down completely in military members' wills when all those named in the wills, testators, executors, witnesses, and beneficiaries all died within days of one another. Now, THERE would have been some interesting cases to watch going through probate!

Link to comment
One reason why a "centralized entity" is counseled, but not actually required, in American wills is the access to that entity by a surrogate or other court having jurisdiction over the estate. They also like, but again, do not require, that witnesses live within about 50 miles of one another, for the same reason. I found this out when making my own first will (at age 23!) when I was in the Air Force. Later on, as a researcher, I found several examples of that system breaking down completely in military members' wills when all those named in the wills, testators, executors, witnesses, and beneficiaries all died within days of one another. Now, THERE would have been some interesting cases to watch going through probate!

:thumbsup: ??? I should think that would have been a nightmare. Would it have meant that if all the beneficiares had died within a stated number of days, the estate would have reverted to the state?

Here I think it is a total of 30 days has to elapse between the death and will becoming valid, than there is provision for the estate going to the next of kin regarding the original beneficiaries. Complicatesd or what!!!

Link to comment

Not as off-topic as you might think, Nana. The Taras/Cage "Symphony in C" is a similar complication. In one case, I was seeking a particular piece of personal property which had been given to a Colonel. In my research, I found that he had willed it to another officer, but that was a case where all the people in the will had been Killed In Action at the Battle of Gettysburg, PA (or at least had died as a consequence thereof in hospital shortly thereafter). The will was interesting, in that the court ordered that two living witnesses had to make positive identification of each signature to the will and supply exemplars for comparison. It made for a lot of witnesses, but in the course of research, I discovered that the presentation of the object had not been made to the Colonel, but instead to the State of New York, so it was never his anyway, but I found it. It was a flag, and its staff was clearly marked by the donor that it was given to the regiment, not the Colonel personally. I arranged for the flag to be returned to state custody and sent immediately to a textile conservation laboratory , to save it from any further deterioration. All parties involved were well satisfied with the resolution.

Link to comment

:thumbsup: That is a really wondwerful story Mel, just shows how people can comandere things when they are not entitled too. But my mention of "state" is in a slightly different constext. As follows.

When someone dies in the UK, without leaving a will, they are classed as intestate. And unless someone who is entitled to their estate makes a claim, it is taken by the government.

On a regular basis the relevant department publishes a list of deceased persons who have left money, property etc without making a will. There are a number of firms who work to trace any heirs who can end up to be very distantly related to the decesed. Some are reputable but others as in life are not. However the reputable ones are known as Heir Hunters, and in fact there is a regular morning programme on television that features their work. They go to endles means to find the true people and get them to sign up for their services. Some times it is only a few thousands of pounds, others hundreds of thousands. Often with the beneficiares finding people who they had no idea existed in their family. I often watch it, it is on morning TV, and very fascinating, the ofrficers travel miles seeking out people, call at rergistry offices and other public bureaus to achieve success. There is often a race between more than one Heir Hunter once the list is published to be the first to contact the people.

It must be worth their while with the fees they command for their company or they would not do it!!!

Link to comment

In the US, the federal government has an interest in estates through the IRS -- i.e., the value of the estate and whether any portion is taxable -- and the state of residency has an interest both in terms of taxes (if there is a state estate tax) and in the way it is distributed, i.e., the state can have mandatory minimum distributions to spouses and/or children, regardless of the terms of the will, as well as define spouse (i.e. whether a spouse under a formal separation agreement is considered a spouse.) Each of the 50 states has its own set of estate law. There is no one federal set of laws.

Link to comment
In the US, the federal government has an interest in estates through the IRS -- i.e., the value of the estate and whether any portion is taxable -- and the state of residency has an interest both in terms of taxes (if there is a state estate tax) and in the way it is distributed, i.e., the state can have mandatory minimum distributions to spouses and/or children, regardless of the terms of the will, as well as define spouse (i.e. whether a spouse under a formal separation agreement is considered a spouse.) Each of the 50 states has its own set of estate law. There is no one federal set of laws.

Helene, This is where the two countries differ in the UK there is only (as far as I am aware) a Inhertance Tax, which is paid if the estate does not stay below a certain financial level. It can be paid at the owners request out of the proceeds of the estate before the funds are distributed to the beneficiaries as one payment to the Inland Revenue (Tax Office). There is no control or interest generated to the various County bodies, the only tax is payable to the central unit. Neither do I think any claim or control can be assumed by government/ County regarding a persons will. However there is a record office, where copies of people's wills are kept for reference purposes. This is often used by those into geneology research. and birth, death and marriage records are also kept for the same purpose.

As long as a will meets the legal requirements in respect to wording, and the correcrt information given concerning and signed by two witnesses, Once it is completed it is either kept by a Soliciter or the owner themselves.Until it is needed on the persons death. It is the usual practise that the will is read after the funeral.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...