Should artistic directors be in the studio?

[Calliope]

to further this along

should the AD be the main choreographer as well, or does that create a conflict of interest?

[citibob]

What is the conflict of interest to which you refer? George Balanchine was certainly the main choreographer for his company, and the results speak for themselves.

[Treefrog]

What a coincidence! I was thinking about this issue (AD as choreographer) just the other day -- and the case in point was the Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, no less.

I was thinking that it ought to be a very good and fortunate situation all around. The AD can hire dancers that suit his choreography. He (or his staff) can coach them in ways that are consistent with the choreography. Dancers get to perform a repertoire choreographed on people much like themselves. I should think this would create a kind of unity of style in the company.

But, as usual, this is pure conjecture; I have no evidence to support this hope.

[Calliope]

I realized, I should re-phrase.

If it's a company you "inherit" you're not the founding anything...

ABT, Joffrey, SFB, NYCB....

[Alexandra]

Historically, the ballet master was the company director until very recently -- Balanchine was doing what every ballet master had done for centuries: trained dancers and furnished the repertory. The advantage is exactly what treefrog noted -- unity of style, and (at least in theory) the ballets are danced exactly as the director wants them to be danced. In the old European theaters, fundraising was not an issue, management was done by the theater staff. Ballet shared a theater with opera, and, in some places, theater and orchestra as well. When a new ballet master was hired, he (very rarely a she) threw out anything in the rep he didn't like, rechoreographed what was there to his liking, brought in whatever were the hits wherever he had just come from, and created his own ballets.

(As late as 1950, the Royal Danish Ballet was run by one man, the director/choreographer, his regisseur -- who did the scheduling -- and a secretary. The director took company class as well as a class for the 16 to 17 year olds every day, attended the administrative meetings, chose the repertory, choreographed new works and maintained his own, kept up the traditional repertory, and handled all internal administrative matters. And they danced as many performances as they do today.)

[Calliope]

Thanks Alexandra.

I guess in this day and age, it seems almost like putting too many proverbial eggs in one basket and forcing change, depending

Balanchine knew it was his company, he could do as he pleased, to an extent, there was no history, he wasn't competing against anyone's choreography or ideas except perhaps his board,

[Alexandra]

I think in the 19th century it was less difficult for several reasons. One, the company's existence was secure. They had horrible problems, never enough money, etc. It wasn't at all Nirvana. But if the ballet master was hired on a five-year contract, he had the job for five years. And the people doing the hiring seemed to know what they were doing -- you don't have the fiascos that happened in London or Copenhagen in the past decade. They knew the taste of the audience and what they wanted the company/theater to be, and there was a reliable network of people to advise (some of the letters are quite funny. "I am sending you M. B----. He is an excellent character dancer and teacher of the youngest students. He will tell you that he is a premier danseur noble and a teacher of the class de perfection; do not believe him." And they didn't.

But the other thing is that there was a generally accepted formula for what ballet was -- the story ballet, whether it was Classical with mythological characters and heroes, or Romantic with fairies and/or character ballets with local color. That's what the audience expected, and that's what it got. I don't mean to minimize the talent that it took to fulfill these repertory demands, and there were hacks then, as now, but a barely competent choreographer could do this. Someone else wrote the libretto; he basically just followed orders -- the way, now, so many people who could not make a ballet from scratch churn out new improved Swan Lakes - or Romeo and Juliets and Nutcrackers. The structures of both are iron; you need to add dances, and anyone who teaches can string steps together. Also, of course, in the 19th century they stole unabashedly

[carbro]

Originally posted by Alexandra

Also, of course, in the 19th century they stole unabashedly

A practice completely discarded in the 20th and 21st centuries! ;)

Even Balanchine remade existing works. Taken as commentaries on their -- uh precursors? -- I accept their validity in varying degrees. That is, I see Cortege Hongrois as Balanchine saying, "This is what the last act of Raymonda felt like to me," rather than "Here is what it was."