You're right, Alex R. I saw a bit of that too. That's another way to pad an otherwise thin program...

True, although i'm not sure which i prefer. i would rather see three half hour works than four or five shorter works, but then again i do want to see works by as many different choreographers as possible to 'broaden my knowledge' and so the latter option lets me do that. what about anyone else?

Having a group of peers and collegues work as "editors" might be beneficial, but I doubt one specific person dubbed the all-knowing "editor" would ever pan out. In my undergrad program, we had a works-in-progress program that offered student, dancer, and faculty-generated feedback to choreographers throughout their dance making. It seemed to work well, providing constructive criticism from a multitude of outlets.

I agree that the choreographer needs to be the sole decision maker throughout the process, but sometimes (professional) choreographers get too caught up in the plethora of ideas while fogetting to follow-through with the choreography's purpose. Many times they have a hard time editing their works because they are so close to the choreography itself. Other times the dancemaker has an ego and/or pride and doesn't want to accept feedback or editing of the piece. Perhaps choreographers could better utilize dance masters, ballet mistresses, AD's, dancers, and staff members as soundboards for their ideas and choreography.

When I buy a ticket, I never think that I'm paying for time. Instead, I'm paying to see a wonderful creation of art and movement on stage. I'd rather pay more money for a shorter work with more "umph" in it than a boring, longer-than-necessary piece. There's nothing wrong, though, with a work that deserves to be long and investigative in movement qualities. I just don't care so much about movement quantities. (However, I won't pay $80 for an orchestra center seat to see 8 minutes total of movement, period )

On a side note, I wonder if these AD's who choreograph for their specific companies would have choreographed professionally had they not become an artistic director themselves. (Examples: Martins, Stevenson, and Tomasson) Perhaps this AD position opens up doors that were not available previously. Would companies have commissioned their works independently without the big company AD title attached? And in this position, does this allow the AD/not-necessarily-choreographer individuals to attempt choreography on a larger-than-necessary (or possibly appropriate) scale?

<small>[ 16 June 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: RaHir ]</small>

Being AD of any company is a privilidge (spelling?) and so i think that, as long as it is not done excessively, the AD almost has a right to have a go at choreographing one or two pieces for his/her company if they feel up to the challenge.

Are you referring to those AD's who just choreograph once or twice in their lifetime? Because I was talking about AD's who choreograph on a regular basis (say 1+ times a season). If this is what you are referring to, then I don't agree.

While an AD and a choreographer share some inherant qualities, they are two very different jobs. An AD manages the overall artistic aspects for an entire company. He (or she) directs the artistic vision by selecting repertory, dancers, and artistic/administrative staff. A choreographer fulfills some of this vision through the dancemaking itself. The AD works with the entire company throughout the season while a choreographer mainly works with selected dancers and artistic staff. Most of the time, an AD's main job is not to make dances, but to further the company's artistic prowess.

This separation between AD and choreographer has become more muddled in recent decades, and with the increasing number of AD's choreographing (and the quantity of works being produced by AD's), I wonder if editing an AD's work is possible. If we were to take the peer-feedback situation, how do you tell your boss that he needs to edit his work? Or that his choreography isn't strong enough for a 40-minute piece? And just a sidenote, if less qualified AD's are creating works, does this take away opportunities from more qualified choreographers?

<small>[ 18 June 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: RaHir ]</small>

Interesting you should bring this up. I talked to a couple of people recently, one a young AD and the other a potential AD, who believe that wearing both hats in a ballet company might result in conflicts of interest.

I was referring ADs who are not choreographers but perhaps have an idea for a piece and use their position as AD to give it a try, just as a one off, not a regular thing. i agree that an AD should not choreograph excessive works just to add works to the repertoire instead of putting on works by other choreogrpahers (unless it is company policy to only perform works by one AD/chorepgrapher e.g. Random Dance). if companies say they will put on a mixed programme, it's my opinion that there shouldn't be more than one work in the programme by the same choreographer, unless the show is dedicated to a particualr person, like Ashton this year.
you talk about less qualified ADs, but so far in every company i've ever seen (admittably that's not many) the AD has been a dancer and choreographer in the past, so if i see in the programme that one of the works is by the AD, i don't immediately think that it's not going to be as strong as the other works.

<small>[ 20 June 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Alex R ]</small>