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

Balanchine's will


Recommended Posts

:wink: Thanks Mel, sorry if I am being thick!! But does it mean that the State the person lives in and the Government can benefit from taxes on a deacsed persons estate? In other words there are two amounts of tax charged. Inhertance tax in the UK is only paid once on the estate.

Now back to Balancine, no wonder they are so rigid on the perforance of his work, there seems to be so many people involved, which makes you wonder if there is a high level of conflict internally in the organisation. I may be totally wrong in wondering about this, but in any event personal feelings can effect even members of a commitee. when decisions are being reached. It only takes one vote, to win an argument, so the "against" voters point of view loses out. (which can be a disavantage if they are more moderate kind of people) I would like to be a fly on the wall during one of their meetings (As long as they do not spot/swot me)!!! :bow: (imagine the smilie in black with wings) Sorry.

Link to comment

With thanks to Jack Reed for the tip on Taper, the following information is taken from the following sources:

Lobenthal, Joel. "Tanaquil Le Clercq". Ballet Review, Fall 1984 (12:3), pp 74-83.

Taper, Bernard. "Balanchine's Will". Ballet Review, Summer 1995 (23:2), pp 29-36.

I. The legacy

II. Annotated list of ballets named in the Legacy (or known at the time of my writing)

III. Financial appraisal of the legacy in question

According to Taper, the will was drawn up (with consultation with T Sysol) and signed on 25 May 1978 with one minor addition of a codicil dated 18 June 1979. Initially he valued the ballets at nothing - it was Horgan who had, in consultation with the IRS after Mr Balanchine's passing, set money value on the legacy. I'll write about that in a following post.

About seventy percent of the rights and all tangible assets (save for two gold watches to his brother Andre) were bequeathed to Tanaquil Le Clercq, Karin von Aroldingen, and Barbara Horgan. Verbatim from the text, p 31:

Horgan and von Aroldingen were to share foreign royalty rights to all but twenty one of the ballets named in the will and media royalty rights to all but twenty five, plus all rights to those ballets not specified in it. They were to also share in any other unspecified assets."

Later in that column:

"Le Clercq was given the American performance rights to eighty-five ballets, of which probably sixty are actually viable." Lobenthal's article does not state precisely the identities of these, just that they were stated by name in the will, I have reproduced the list in the following post.

There are, of course, specific ballets given, in alphabetical order by last name, which includes some of the chief legatees:

Diana Adams: Midsummer Night's Dream

Karin von Aroldingen: Serenade, Liebeslieder Walzer, Stravinsky Violin Concerto, Variations pour une Porte et un Soupir, Vienna Waltzes, Kammermusik No 2

Merrill Ashley: Ballo della Regina

Betty Cage: Symphony in C (later given to John Taras)

Rosemary Dunleavy: Le Tombeau de Couperin

Mrs André Eglevsky: Sylvia Pas de Deux, Minkus Pas de Deux

Suzanne Farrell: Meditation, Tzigane, Don Quixote

Barbara Horgan: Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet

Lincoln Kirstein: Concerto Barocco, Orpheus

Patricial McBride: Tarantella, Pavane, Etude for Piano

Kay Mazzo: Duo Concertant

Jerome Robbins: Firebird, Pucinella

In all, there was nothing given to Martins, the NYCB, or SAB. For further information on the backstage drama created by the bequeathment, consult Taper's article.

Horgan and von Aroldingen were the chief instigators behind the Trust and they convinced McBride and Dunleavy to deposit their ballet rights as well. I am sure that more have joined since, particularly as people have passed away or have retired from active participation in the arts. Interestingly, Taper notes that "[o]nce [the ballets were deposited in the Trust], the action was irrevocable" (33). Horgan acted as trustee-administrator for the Trust, though I don't know if she has continued in that role. The trust went into effect 30 March 1987.

Le Clercq did not join the Trust, but she did ask Horgan to represent her, something that (as Taper notes) some of the other legatees have done as well. I assume that the arrangement continued to her death.

Link to comment

I. The legacy

II. Annotated list of ballets left to the chief legatees

III. Financial appraisal of the legacy in question

Lobenthal, Joel. "Tanaquil Le Clercq". Ballet Review, Fall 1984 (12:3), pp 74-86.

(For anyone interested, Lobenthal also includes a very good videography of Le Clercq's various appearances on film.)

Of particular note is that the Four Temperaments was not listed in Lobenthal's article. This suggests that either Lobenthal's article is incomplete or that it is one of the unnamed assets that Horgan and von Aroldingen shared. Does anyone know for certain?

This list is from page 83 and is listed as ballets bequeathed to her and two other associates (presumably Horgan and von Aroldingen).

La Chatte

Apollon Musagète

The Gods Go A-Begging

Prodigal Son

Le Bourgeois Gentilhommes (two versions)

Cotillon

Mozartiana (it's unclear which of the five versions he meant)

The Seven Deadly Sins (two versions)

Le Baiser de la Fée

Card Game

Ballet Imperial (this is presumably the 'classical' version, as the Concerto is listed separately later in the list)

Mozart Violin Concerto in A Major

Danses Concertantes (two versions)

Waltz Academy

Night Shadow (both versions?)

The Spellbound Child

Divertimento

Renard

Symphonie Concertante

Theme and Variations (standalone 'classical' version presumably, as the full Suite version is listed later)

Firebird (1949 - which means that Robbins presumably has the rights to a later version - but which?)

Bourrée Fantastique

Trumpet Concerto

La Valse

À la Françaix

Tyl Ulenspiegel

Swan Lake Act II

Scotch Symphony

Metamorphoses

Harlequinade Pas de Deux

Concertino

Valse Fantaisie (probably the 1953 version - see later annotation for Glinkiana for the 1967? version)

Opus 34

The Nutcracker

Western Symphony

Roma

Allegro Brillante

Divertimento No 15

A Musical Joke

Square Dance (two versions)

Agon

Gounod Symphony

Stars and Stripes

Waltz-Scherzo

Episodes (I assume this is just the Balanchine sections and noninclusive of the Graham portion)

Modern Jazz: Variants

Panamerica

Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux

The Figure in the Carpet

Monumentum Pro Gesualdo

Donizetti Variations

Jazz Concert: Ragtime

Raymonda Variations

Bugaku

Movements for Piano and Orchestra

Clarinade

La Source

Harlequinade

Variations

Trois Valses Romantiques

Jewels

Glinkiana (probably includes the 1967? version of Valse Fantaisie)

Metastaseis and Pithoprakta

Slaughter on Tenth Avenue

Who Cares?

Tschaikovsky Suite No 3

Sonata

Choral Variations on Bach's 'Von Himmel Hoch'

Divertimento from 'Le Baiser de la Fée'

Scherzo à la Russe

Symphony in three Movements

Tschaikovsky Piano Concerto No 2

Cortége Hongrois

Coppélia

Sonatine

L'Enfant et les Sortiléges

Schéhérazade

Gaspard de la Nuis

Rapsodie Espagnole

The Steadfast Tin Soldier

Chaconne

Union Jack

Link to comment
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.

If I remember the book correctly, Farrell says the first time she danced Meditation away from NYCB was for Bejart – she and Bejart had been talking about performing a Balanchine ballet, and it occurred to Farrell that one, Meditation, was hers. She writes off to confirm and Jacques d’Amboise arrives to coach Jorge Donn and Farrell.

Link to comment

I. The legacy

II. Annotated list of ballets left to the chief legatees

III. Financial appraisal of the legacy in question

Information for this post once again came from Taper - see part one for citations. All values are in USD. Please let me know if this is too much to paraphrase from my sources.

(Mr Balanchine took no salary for the first sixteen years of the NYCB's existence. Instead he drew $25/performance royalties for his ballets. He only began drawing a salary in 1964 upon donations to the company and school from the Ford foundation.)

Horgan, upon executing the will, was asked to value the ballets in consultation with Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendolsohn, they argued that because fees were low and because audiences were inevitably going to want novelty, that the IRS should not expect more than five years of posthumous income from them (42).

Their initial appraisal listed 89 ballets, itemizing royalties for three years before Balanchine's death. Average income per annum was 87 067.60, with some entries as follows:

Allegro Brillante: 11 480.11

Nutcracker: 8 173.34

Apollo: 972.12

Serenade: 4 410.84

Four Temperaments: 1 813.32

Tarantella: 13.22

Robert Schumann's "Davidsbündlertänzer": 286.67

The legacy was then presumed to be worth 190 691.37, which, as Taper notes, is "a figure the connoisseur of probate documents has to admire" (33).

After some haggling in April 1986 over a dozen unspecified ballets that may 'survive more than a few years", the adjusted value of the legacy was set at 550 000. Taxable value was fixed at 1 192 086.00, with federal taxes set at 300 562.00 and New York State tax at 69 787.80

So, apparently that's how much genius was worth on a tax document. In the initial years after Mr Balanchine's death, the company (or the board) discussed pursuing strategies that could possibly wrestle those rights back from the Trust or Le Clercq. At one point, Le Clercq was offered one million dollars for her rights, but she refused to sell (34). Eventually, the company was granted special licensing considerations that continues today.

Link to comment
:) Thanks Mel, sorry if I am being thick!! But does it mean that the State the person lives in and the Government can benefit from taxes on a deacsed persons estate? In other words there are two amounts of tax charged. Inhertance tax in the UK is only paid once on the estate.

Nana, it's involved with some 50 separate states, but in NY, for example, the State may be entitled to an inheritance tax if the estate is over a certain amount, somewhere around £350,000 right now, if I'm not mistaken. Other states don't have any inheritance tax. It's as if Duchy of Norfolk, for example, had an inheritance tax as well as the Crown (for those who decided to die in said Duchy).

I love the creative accounting used in appraising the value of the ballets!

Link to comment
I love the creative accounting used in appraising the value of the ballets!

The accounting of future income seems to be in direct contrast with the 'death boost' that some people's works receive at their passing, note for example the recent licensing bonanza of a certain pop singer. Experience has certainly show us otherwise!

Link to comment
Please let me know if this is too much to paraphrase from my sources.

Wow! Connect a scholar like emilienne with a good library -- I'm guessing the main University of Illinois library -- and stand back! Actually, have we quite got to answering Paul's original query for a list of who's got the rights to what today? Or maybe I'm still thick-headed this evening from the recent clock change (from Daylight Saving to Standard Time). I suppose nearly all of it is in the hands of the George Balanchine Trust, except for a few items like Symphony in C. So, no, I'd say this is not too much.

Does that long list come from the Lobenthal article, then? The rest, not to mention the page numbers and your statements, emilienne, makes clear your source, especially to someone like me who has read Taper (1996; Amazon lists an unavailable 1999 edition).

Link to comment
Wow!
I couldn't have put it better myself. "Wow!" And thank you, emilienne, for your work.

I want to second Mme. Hermine's request for a sticky on this. Being old-fashioned, I've printed out emilienne's posts on PAPER and will save them inside my copy of the Balanchine Catalogue of Works. :)

Jack asks:

Actually, have we quite got to answering Paul's original query for a list of who's got the rights to what today?
Not completely, but we are on our way. PLEASE, if anyone has additional information about the ownership (or history of ownership) of specific ballets, continue to add them to this thread.
Link to comment
With thanks to Jack Reed for the tip on Taper, the following information is taken from the following sources:

Lobenthal, Joel. "Tanaquil Le Clercq". Ballet Review, Fall 1984 (12:3), pp 74-83.

Taper, Bernard. "Balanchine's Will". Ballet Review, Summer 1995 (23:2), pp 29-36.

I. The legacy

II. Annotated list of ballets named in the Legacy (or known at the time of my writing)

III. Financial appraisal of the legacy in question

According to Taper, the will was drawn up (with consultation with T Sysol) and signed on 25 May 1978 with one minor addition of a codicil dated 18 June 1979. Initially he valued the ballets at nothing - it was Horgan who had, in consultation with the IRS after Mr Balanchine's passing, set money value on the legacy. I'll write about that in a following post.

About seventy percent of the rights and all tangible assets (save for two gold watches to his brother Andre) were bequeathed to Tanaquil Le Clercq, Karin von Aroldingen, and Barbara Horgan. Verbatim from the text, p 31:

Horgan and von Aroldingen were to share foreign royalty rights to all but twenty one of the ballets named in the will and media royalty rights to all but twenty five, plus all rights to those ballets not specified in it. They were to also share in any other unspecified assets."

Later in that column:

"Le Clercq was given the American performance rights to eighty-five ballets, of which probably sixty are actually viable." Lobenthal's article does not state precisely the identities of these, just that they were stated by name in the will, I have reproduced the list in the following post.

There are, of course, specific ballets given, in alphabetical order by last name, which includes some of the chief legatees:

Diana Adams: Midsummer Night's Dream

Karin von Aroldingen: Serenade, Liebeslieder Walzer, Stravinsky Violin Concerto, Variations pour une Porte et un Soupir, Vienna Waltzes, Kammermusik No 2

Merrill Ashley: Ballo della Regina

Betty Cage: Symphony in C (later given to John Taras)

Rosemary Dunleavy: Le Tombeau de Couperin

Mrs André Eglevsky: Sylvia Pas de Deux, Minkus Pas de Deux

Suzanne Farrell: Meditation, Tzigane, Don Quixote

Barbara Horgan: Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet

Lincoln Kirstein: Concerto Barocco, Orpheus

Patricial McBride: Tarantella, Pavane, Etude for Piano

Kay Mazzo: Duo Concertant

Jerome Robbins: Firebird, Pucinella

In all, there was nothing given to Martins, the NYCB, or SAB. For further information on the backstage drama created by the bequeathment, consult Taper's article.

Horgan and von Aroldingen were the chief instigators behind the Trust and they convinced McBride and Dunleavy to deposit their ballet rights as well. I am sure that more have joined since, particularly as people have passed away or have retired from active participation in the arts. Interestingly, Taper notes that "[o]nce [the ballets were deposited in the Trust], the action was irrevocable" (33). Horgan acted as trustee-administrator for the Trust, though I don't know if she has continued in that role. The trust went into effect 30 March 1987.

Le Clercq did not join the Trust, but she did ask Horgan to represent her, something that (as Taper notes) some of the other legatees have done as well. I assume that the arrangement continued to her death.

I wonder fellow posters : Can we rightly assume that George Balanchines work went from having no value, to what the Trust thought it was worth.and aquired. And which they have been receiving licence fees for since its foundation. I cannot help wonder if there is a financial reward generated for the personel who instigated the Trust.? And if there is financial compensation to those who gifted their legacies. Or does all the income go into the coffers of the Trust itself. Considering the value of the ballets he created, I wonder how the fees are arrived at in the licence costs (Are they worked out on s percentage of the value given to the work by the Trust committee?) Cnsidering the many companies worldwide who must pay. No wonder they are so keen to protect THEIR interests. I find it incredable that the NYCB , SFB and Peter Martins were omitted from the legacies. Am I correct in thinking Martins was GB's protagy? And does NYCB have to pay royalties to the Trust to perform their founders works. To sum up. is it possible the financial benefits are obscured by the damand for original Artistic integrity the Trust claims to represent. Though as a registered charity, it has the need to create income to pay the overheads.

Link to comment

I don't find it incredible that those people were omitted; I'd assume that somewhere was a clause "making up" for having been "passed over", such as freedom from some sort of fee or another. I had also assumed, though I may be incorrect, that leaving so many ballets to Tanaquil LeClercq was a way of making sure she had a living of some kind, and thought it very generous. If the Trust/Foundation/etc. assesses fees, well I'm also assuming that those working for them get paid a salary of some kind, the rest going to "taking care of business", etc. Lots of assumptions, and they may not all be correct, but they seem fairly logical, though reality may be otherwise.

Link to comment

I think you are right about the legacy to Le Clercq, Mme. Hermine; Balanchine seems to have been trying to look out for her.

Balanchine couldn't leave a ballet to everyone, of course, and he seems to have favored his ballerinas over his danseurs, not terribly surprising. Edward Villella did suggest in his book that he was a little hurt at having been left out, which I can understand - so many of the ballets made for him were really his.

Link to comment

Taper (in 1996, anyway) has some things to say about two points raised above about not why Balanchine didn't leave anything to NYCB and did leave so much to LeClercq:

"... My own sense is that at the time Balanchine wrote his will, he had little confidence the New York City Ballet could survive his death. Nor did that anticipation trouble him as much as some might suppose. ... In his lifetime, he had been involved with perhaps a dozen ballet companies that had disappeared, at least half of them companies in which he had been the central figure, including four in the United States. ...

"In short, I think one best understands this controversy about the will by remembering that for Balanchine the company and the school mattered principally because of what they enabled him to do. They were his laboratory, and his showcase too, but never his memorial. Process, not finished achievement, was his passion."

And

"[LeClercq's] continued well-being, as someone who would always be confined to a wheelchair, was of acute concern to him, and he bore a burden of guilt at having left her in 1962 in vain pursuit of his newest muse... Of his four former wives -- or five -- LeClercq was the only one mentioned in the will."

Link to comment
Taper (in 1996, anyway) has some things to say about two points raised above about not why he didn't leave anything to NYCB and did leave so much to LeClercq:

"... My own sense is that at the time Balanchine wrote his will, he had little confidence the New York City Ballet could survive his death. Nor did that anticipation trouble him as much as some might suppose. ... In his lifetime, he had been involved with perhaps a dozen ballet companies that had disappeared, at least half of them companies in which he had been the central figure, including four in the United States. ...

"In short, I think one best understands this controversy about the will by remembering that for Balanchine the company and the school mattered principally because of what they enabled him to do. They were his laboratory, and his showcase too, but never his memorial. Process, not finished achievement, was his passion."

And

"[LeClercq's] continued well-being, as someone who would always be confined to a wheelchair, was of acute concern to him, and he bore a burden of guilt at having left her in 1962 in vain pursuit of his newest muse... Of his four former wives -- or five -- LeClercq was the only one mentioned in the will."

.Jack now you have explained the possible reasons behind the actions that could have prevailed it makes sense why George Balanchine wanted to leave Lechercq' secure in the event of his death. Did he ever have any children to follow in his footsteps?

Considering the fact that the NYCB survives to this day, and is one of the top companies in the world

perhaps thanks to Peter Martins and his dedicated team. GB took the right action in handing the reigns to him. I feel sure he would be very proud and happy if he knew. To think his creativity lives on to this day is wonderful and his heritage has been preserved for the world of dance

I have found a list of his many ballets, whether it is totally correct I cannot say, but all the same I wish to post it as a a tribute to a wonderful Choreographer If you know of any missing works, would you please add them..

Link to comment

At balletmet you can find a published list of Balanchines ballets together with a brief biography. See http://www.balletmet.org/Notes/Balanchine.html

It will be interesting Nanarina if you can find any errors or omissions in this list.

However earlier in the year Sarah Kaufmann stated, "Of the more than 400 ballets Balanchine created in his 79 years..." see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9050704620.html

Link to comment

Easy does it, Nanarina. As leonid implies, I think, the list would be a long one!

Certainly Balanchine's accomplishment deserves the celebration contemplation of it inspires. When we think of the number of works and the quality of so many of the ones we know, or knew, some of us find comparable precedent in the works of such artists as W. A. Mozart (who lived only half as long as Balanchine!) and William Shakespeare, but unlike them, what Balanchine made cannot be preserved by printing on paper, as you know: Ballets are perishable, even in the normal course of things when they are taught by older dancers to younger ones and kept in performance.

Yes, New York City Ballet continues, and continues to list many Balanchine ballets on its schedules, but among many of us who watched performances of his company, performing under his supervision -- I saw about 500 performances myself -- there is some controversy about whether these are authentically Balanchine's ballets or, in some extreme instances, caricatures of them. Most looked performed without that "inner understanding" they had. Consider why the George Balanchine Foundation began its Interpreter's Archive video series, showing role originators coaching younger dancers.

It looks to us like Peter Martins, NYCB's director, is little interested in maintaining Balanchine's ballets, and he seldom brings in originators of those roles to coach younger dancers, the usual, if not perfectly reliable, way ballets are maintained.

An outstanding company which does do this is Miami City Ballet, which I am traveling to see today, so I won't have a lot more to say about this controversy here right away or even have the opportunity to look for the threads discussing this topic which must be here. Certainly it deserves its own thread! But MCB's resources are more limited than NYCB's, and the Suzanne Farrell Ballet's even more limited, although they are both worth mentioning in this connection because (to many experienced eyes besides mine) they perform Balanchine's ballets very much in Balanchine's way, but within the limits of their much smaller budgets and consequent schedules.

Sarah Kaufmann's complaint is also being discussed at length in another thread here on BT.

Link to comment

:clapping: Thank you leonid, for the links. The list I was going to use is in fact the balletnet.org you mentioned. I have counted, albeit with my dodgy eye sight, so I may have made errors, 429 listings. However some items include more than one work under a general heading.

I have also read the other link, it seems strange that the total number of Balanchines works are so

much lower than what this list gives according to the much higher number he created as suggested by the Washungton Post aerticle. Possibly the other mediums he choreographed for are included in the larger numbers, which we are unable to confirm nowadays.

This has been such an interesting thread, I like a lot of Mr "Bs" works, but not all of them. all the same I do not agree in what was written by Sarah Kaufman, only part of it. There should of course be room for other choreographers, but before success they have to face living up to the reputation of the ghost.

Link to comment
Easy does it, Nanarina. As leonid implies, I think, the list would be a long one!

Certainly Balanchine's accomplishment deserves the celebration contemplation of it inspires. When we think of the number of works and the quality of so many of the ones we know, or knew, some of us find comparable precedent in the works of such artists as W. A. Mozart (who lived only half as long as Balanchine!) and William Shakespeare, but unlike them, what Balanchine made cannot be preserved by printing on paper, as you know: Ballets are perishable, even in the normal course of things when they are taught by older dancers to younger ones and kept in performance.

Yes, New York City Ballet continues, and continues to list many Balanchine ballets on its schedules, but among many of us who watched performances of his company, performing under his supervision -- I saw about 500 performances myself -- there is some controversy about whether these are authentically Balanchine's ballets or, in some extreme instances, caricatures of them. Most looked performed without that "inner understanding" they had. Consider why the George Balanchine Foundation began its Interpreter's Archive video series, showing role originators coaching younger dancers.

It looks to us like Peter Martins, NYCB's director, is little interested in maintaining Balanchine's ballets, and he seldom brings in originators of those roles to coach younger dancers, the usual, if not perfectly reliable, way ballets are maintained.

An outstanding company which does do this is Miami City Ballet, which I am traveling to see today, so I won't have a lot more to say about this controversy here right away or even have the opportunity to look for the threads discussing this topic which must be here. Certainly it deserves its own thread! But MCB's resources are more limited than NYCB's, and the Suzanne Farrell Ballet's even more limited, although they are both worth mentioning in this connection because (to many experienced eyes besides mine) they perform Balanchine's ballets very much in Balanchine's way, but within the limits of their much smaller budgets and consequent schedules.

Sarah Kaufmann's complaint is also being discussed at length in another thread here on BT.

Jack Sorry I do not know anything about the two companies you mentioned, we hardley ever hear anything about American Companies unless it is NYCB and ABT. I have been getting Dance Europe for a few months now, which does broaden the horizons a little for me. I have never been to the US, but did see ABT recently in Le Corsair, and Houston Ballet in Cleopatra some years ago when they visited London. I am rather out on a limb here in Norfolk, certainly well away from the Londod scene.

We have a small Arts Centre at Kings Lynn, where the stage is so small, the visiting companies are rather low in the scale of things. Then we have a good theatre at Norwich, but again due to the size of the stage, we do not get the main stream visitors, Northern Ballet Theatre come, which is a reasonable co. But the days of English National Ballet, Ballet Rambert (origional( and the Royal Ballet Touring Co, are sadly long gone. Though we did get a small number of Birmingham R.B. dancers at Kings Lynn for the first time, and guess what they performed Balanchine!!

Link to comment

Balanchine left Tarantella to McBride, not Villella.

Check out William Weslow's chapter in "I Remember Balanchine." ("Woman is everything, man nothing, little insect, something like that." I actually can't quote it here, the language is unprintable.)

Weslow is extremely opinionated and VERY readable and he MAY BE exaggerating, but it looks lie he's describing what from his limited vantage-point he did see, and it jibes with the things Villella himself has said about how balanchine treated him -- the resentment about not taking his class, the way he wouldn't let him dance Tchai pas in London but had them do Tarantella instead -- the anecdote about Balanchine taking him to the costume dept and getting him up to look short and ridiculous.

I'm not putting Balanchine down.

It looks like he felt he owed his ballerinas -- they kept him interested, they were on his mind, the ballets are FOR them and should be theirs. It is VERY telling htat he provided for Leclercq.

He kept Allegra in the company to the very end even when she only danced one ballet all year....

I think you are right about the legacy to Le Clercq, Mme. Hermine; Balanchine seems to have been trying to look out for her.

Balanchine couldn't leave a ballet to everyone, of course, and he seems to have favored his ballerinas over his danseurs, not terribly surprising. Edward Villella did suggest in his book that he was a little hurt at having been left out, which I can understand - so many of the ballets made for him were really his.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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