CriticalDance Forum

regional meaning amatuer, it wasn't appaling at all....It gave us a chance to do Balanchine choreography, the director made no money off of this. She stole nothing, borrowed maybe, but stole no. It might be appaling if it were professional and she made money but the only thing gained here was knowledge and experience. She had thought originally that permission was given and set the peice of us, only to find out they wanted money........that our small company would never see. It was the second time she had re-staged this and i believe the first time she was givin permission for free. She had performed it during her professional career. I think that means it was a part of her. Donald McKayle choreographed a wonderful dance and gave it away, to all dansers.

It seems to me that if you borrow my car, you need my permission. Even if you don't drive it, or make money off of it - you still need my permission.

If you change the license plate - it's still my car and you still need my permission.

If I understood the above post correctly, Balanchine's choreography was used, that's his (or his designated heirs) property - it belongs to someone. Therefore permission is necessary to use that choreography.

No, "regional" means "not one of the 5 or 10 world-class or national-class companies". There are many professional companies that are regional; that's why I asked.

Yes, it was -- and is even more so by your attempts to defend it.

Then it's OK for me to steal your car? After all, it will give me the chance to go to the beach.

I concur with Basheva's comments on this.

If she used someone else's intellectual property without permission, she most certainly did steal it.

OK, so as long as I bring your car back, it's OK?

Irrelevant. She used someone else's property without permission.

That was McKayle's decision to make, not your choreographer's, just as the decision as to whether or not to grant the rights to Serenade belongs to the Balanchine Trust -- not your choreographer.

<small>[ 08-17-2002, 19:39: Message edited by: Tom Skelton ]</small>

This is something else we haven't discussed; the music for Serenade is Tschaikovsky's Serenade for Strings and is certainly public domain, but the costumes may still be covered by copyright. If not, they're at least ethically the property of either the original designer or of NYCB (depending on the terms of the original contract).

<small>[ 08-18-2002, 19:15: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

Hi agntrypod,

You seem to think that money is the main issue in restrictions placed on works. It is not. Neither is it the opportunity for dancers like yourself to have a "Balanchine experience." The issue here is the integrity -- the reputation -- of the choreographer's product and the respect of the choreographer's wishes.

If you have ever been to a "legitimate" performance of Balanchine's work, you will have seen this statement printed in the program:

This performance of __________, a Balanchine(R) ballet, is presented by arrangement with The George Balanchine Trust and has been produced in accordance with the Balanchine Style(R) and Balanchine Technique(R). Service standards established and provided by the Trust.

This means that the choreographer wanted a specific style and a certain level of technique to be maintained in the performance of his works. To ensure this, Balanchine created an organization which gives specific people the job of making sure his ballets are danced well. The people chosen are usually former NYCB company members of long standing who have "danced their way through" the ballets, performing different roles in the works over the years. Often they are people who are closely associated with certain ballets or roles in the ballets they stage. In earlier days, they were frequently dancers who had danced the pieces at their premieres. This is worlds away from simply having danced a few of the works somewhere at some time in one's career.

The high standards of the Trust sometime mean that companies that want to perform Balanchine ballets are not allowed to do so. If your teacher had in fact previously been permitted by the Trust to stage the work you danced (which I question), you and your fellow students may have done the work justice. But your unsanctioned performance of Balanchine's work, regardless of whether it made anyone any money or not, may have presented dancing not up to the standards desired by Mr. Balanchine himself. The audience may have come away from the performance with a less-than-ideal impression of Mr. B's talents. They may hesitate to attend other performances of his work in the future. This is how the reputation of the choreographer can potentially suffer.

It's wonderful that you admire Mr. B's work and that you had the experience of dancing some of it, but as soon as the work left the studio and was performed in public, there was much more at issue than your own experience.

Think

<small>[ 09-13-2002, 11:37: Message edited by: Thinkerbell ]</small>

Even if the music is public domain, most recordings still fall under copyright. Musicians like to eat, too.

In the case of Angela's original question, there may have been a dispute over ownership of the work: whether it belonged to the former AD, or the company, or was owned jointly. It all depends on the details of the previous employment arrangement.

Remember the game "telephone"...wherein everyone sits in a circle and one person whispers a phrase into another's ear and so on...until, by the time it reaches the last person, it's been totally distorted?

This is what Mr. B. was trying to prevent by establishing the Trust.

<small>[ 09-16-2002, 09:37: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

On a related subject....

From the NY Times:
More

I like the "telephone" analogy. Very appropriate. Aren't there also issues with the costume designs associated with Balanchine works, i.e. you have to use the original designs.

There are no rules to dance. Just dance.

As long as it is your own creation, have at it. If someone else choreographed it you have to ask. There are rules and lots of them. That is why people create trusts.

<small>[ 11-17-2002, 23:33: Message edited by: Lucy ]</small>