Thanks for posting the link, dirac. I'm glad to see Robert Craft is still going at 90 and as interesting as ever, even for one like me who's not quite got all the technical chops to get everything out of what he lays out, like Stravinsky's choreographic blueprints. Maybe the composer's own reminiscences, forty-six years later, of the time of Le Sacre's composition would be interesting companion reading. The only online version of the text of his essay, "Apropos Le Sacre du Printemps" I could find today is buried in this long page:
Once on the page, search it on the word "apropos", and you have it:
... I was guided by no system whatever in "Le Sacre du Printemps."
When I think of the music of the other composers of that time who
interest me — Berg's music, which is synthetic (in the best sense), and
Webern's, which is analytic — how much more theoretical it seems than
"Le Sacre." And these composers belonged to and were supported by
a great tradition. Very little immediate tradition lies behind "Le
Sacre du Printemps," however, and no theory. I had only my ear to
help me; I heard and I wrote what I heard. I am the vessel through
which "Le Sacre" passed.
And IIRC, Balanchine's response to being asked what he thought of Bejart's Sacre was, "You can't do it, but it's the best one." He didn't think all music was capable of choreography.
Anyway, having read that comment before one of my visits to New York, I took advantage of the opportunity to see Bejart's company perform it, and I agree with those who admire it. I'm sure that was well before Taylor's staging appeared in 1980, a few years before Balanchine's final decline. I don't know whether he commented on that, but it's the other staging I enjoy. The Hodson/Archer effort, the only other one I've seen, looks to me like just that, too desiccated to be rewarding, I'm afraid, an effect reinforced by reading the material contemporaneous to Sacre's origin in Robert Gottlieb's great anthology, Reading Dance.