New Ballets? What kind

[Rachel]

QUOTE (canbelto @ Jun 22 2004, 12:40 PM)

All I'm saying is that as its been roughly 20 years since Balanchine's death, it's a bit unrealistic to expect all new commissioned ballets to adhere to something Mr. B would have approved of.

Do we even want new choreography to be made in the Balanchine aesthetic? Because afterall, it will never be Balanchine. Wouldn't we rather the new work be an expression of the choreographer's own aesthetic and sensibilities? In the case of a panegyric, as Eifman's ballet seemed to have meant to have been, the honored choreographer's aesthetic should have been represented. But in terms of other new work? Afterall, we want creativity, not the inevitable "parodies" that result when a choreographer uses Balanchine's aesthetic as his own, as Ari mentioneed. Also, as afore mentioned, scenes like the Bar in Union Jack and Bottom"s and Titania's pas de deux in Midsummer would have been corny if any other choreographer had made them.

However, if its the relationship between the music and choregraphy, the crafting of steps, the embodiment of the dancers abilities in the choreography, and structure that maintains technique, I'm of the camp that good choreography should include them[hockeyfan228/QUOTE]

I agree that all good choreography should hold dear these hallmarks of Balanchine. But does that mean that all NYCB repertory must hold true Balanchine's own values?

Rachel

[Alexandra]

I agree that all good choreography should hold dear these hallmarks of Balanchine. But does that mean that all NYCB repertory must hold true Balanchine's own values?

I'd say in the interests of the institution, the ballets should remain within Balanchine's aesthetic, as Balanchine remained within Petipa's aesthetic. Some of his work obviously resembled Petipa's, much did not, but it never strayed from the underlying aesthetic.

We've had a lot of imitation Balanchine. Many of the choreographers seem to think that the world began with "Agon" or the Stravinsky Festival (1972). And some of it is just plain imitative. That's not more than a stopgap solution to the problem of new repertory.

What one would hope for is someone who can come in and not think, "Oh, I have to be Balanchine," or "I'm Balanchine's heir!" or "Whatever I do, I don't want to be Balanchine," but to share his sensibilities naturally and create new work that will be recognizably part of the family.

The problem is, if you get something that's too far away from Balanchine -- even a very good choreographer, Mark Morris, say -- then the Balanchine repertory would start looking like Morris. When ABT had Twyla Tharp in residence, the Shades scene began to look like Tharp's parody of Shades in "Push Comes to Shove," where the Shades peak at the audience from under their outstretched arm in arabesque. Cute in Push, not cute going down that ramp!

[Alexandra]

Note to the lost and confused -- my fault. I moved these two posts over from the Musagete thread, where Rachel first posted her question.

[oberon]

The two ballets that come to mind which have sort of been "different" were LA STRAVAGANZA and VESPRO. I liked the first and hated the second.

In general, I have liked Wheeldon's plotless ballets (POLYPHONIA, MERCURIAL, MORPHOSES, SHAMBARDS) more than his "story/costume" ones (SCENES DE BALLET, VARIATIONS SERIEUSES, CARNIVAL OF ANIMALS)...

Choice of music is a key to building an interesting ballet; some of the recent Diamond Project pieces suffered from uninspiring scores. Two ballets that I greatly enjoyed, PRISM and TWILIGHT COURANTE, showed imaginative use of familiar music.

Balanchine's range was enormous: from BAROCCO to PORTE & SOUPIR, from WESTERN SYMPHONY to EPISODES. I wonder if newcomers to the ballet, seeing these 4 Balanchine works on a single programme without being told they were all the work of one choreographer, would be able to figure it out.

After HAIKU, I'm looking forward to seeing what Albert Evans comes up with next...

[Ari]

One problem with wanting more ballets in a certain esthetic is that we are constantly re-assessing the nature of an esthetic -- not always consciously -- as time goes on and tastes change. I remember reading a book by a member of the Diaghilev crowd that praised The Sleeping Beauty for being a ballet that was, in essence, a gesamtkunstwerk, a fusion of all the arts -- in other words, a Diaghilev ballet. Years later, when Ninette de Valois decided to use the ballet as the foundation for her own company, she was primarily interested in it as the repository of classical style which her dancers could use as a basis for all their work. Nowadays, it means . . . well, who knows what it means, other than a lavish full-length story ballet that will sell out the house? It probably means different things to different companies. But the point is, its significance has changed over the years, and choreographers who were charged with making a ballet in the style of The Sleeping Beauty in 1913, 1940, and 2000, would probably interpret the assignment in three different ways.

We've already seen that Peter Martins's interpretation of the Balanchine esthetic is, at best, narrowed to B's spiky black and white works, although in the past he has made ballets, like The Magic Flute and the Schubert ballet of the early 80s, in other modes that Balanchine worked in. So one's interpretation of the "Balanchine esthetic" depends on many factors, including the temper of the times and one's own preferences.

[Rachel]

But the point is, its significance has changed over the years, and choreographers who were charged with making a ballet in the style of The Sleeping Beauty in 1913, 1940, and 2000, would probably interpret the assignment in three different ways.

Ari, I'm not sure whether you think that this broadened spectrum of interpretation is adverse or not. I think that this diversity of interpretations may be the only reason that a continuance of choreography in Balanchine's aesthetic can be done creatively. What I mean is that if Balanchine work was always interpreted in the same way, far less creativity could be spawned. But, if a choreographer is able to look at Balanchine's work and see the many facets that can lead to an influence on his/her own choreography, he/she is much more likely to continue within the aesthetic in an original manner. For example, if all a choreographer sees in Balanchine's work that exemplifies Balanchine's aesthetic is the relationship of man and woman, the choreographer might end up limited in creative possibilities, resulting in the creation of a parody. But if the choreographer is able to spot the subtleties of Balanchine's aesthetic, he will have a larger source of inspiration for his work, and his continuation of aesthetic will neither hinder his own creativity nor produce a parody.

Rachel

[Ari]

Rachel, I agree with you completely about how choreographers should draw on the Balanchine legacy. In pointing out the many different ways the Balanchine esthetic could be interpreted I was thinking more of the point of view of audience members, including critics, who might not immediately recognize the influence for what it is. If a devotee of Petipa had been told in 1929 that Apollo was a ballet in the tradition of The Sleeping Beauty, he probably would have been incredulous and outraged. For that matter, there still are people who would react that way! The difficulty is that artists are always in advance of everyone else, and it's our (audience members') job to try to catch up to them. Would we recognize the Balanchine esthetic in a ballet that might, at first, look very different? I hope so, but I'm not optimistic.

[kfw]

For me, the Balanchine aesthetic includes his romantic view of women and his Orthodox Christian faith. Not that they're discernible in every single ballet, but they're obviously there in the overall corpus of his work. From what I read and what little new work I see, both faith and romance seem in short supply on stage today.