Not all of Balanchine's ballets came to their present owners through his will -- some (I think) were given away during his lifetime...

But first of all, is there a list anywhere of who owns what now?

Secondly, it would be good if it were annotated, with indications of how the transactions took place, and if anybody'y already left a ballet to a third party.

THis could be a ph d thesis, I guess -- but probably the research has already been done.

John Taras, who never participated in the Trust, had rights to Symphony in C, which he in turn left to SAB.

I have a foggy memory of a friend saying that she read GB's will online. I couldn't find it. Dale Harris' papers, left to New York Public Library, include a copy of GB's LW&T (near top of pg. 16, box 19, folder 1). http://www.nypl.org/research/lpa/dan/pdf/danHarris.pdf

Also, I turned up this page (but no others) listing Barbara Horgan and Karin Anny Hannelore [von Aroldingen] Gewirtz as Trustees of some ballets, and Patricia McBride as Settlor of Tarantella. I have no idea whether the royalties go to a pool administered by the Trust or to the individual heir.

According to Francia Russell, Balanchine willed the rights to "Symphony in C" to a woman with whom he worked closely -- I can't remember who, but it wasn't Barbara Horgan -- who gave them to Taras. Russell had to get special permission to stage the version of the finale of "Symphony in C" that she knew for a PNB gala, because Taras had a single version that he insisted on until he died.

I recall reading something right at the time of his death, and think I remember Von Aroldingen got maybe five of them, but this is relying on just that one memory. I believe I heard her say something about this on a video (it may be on 6 Balanchine Ballerinas--no, that's not it, she's not one of the 6, can't remember where I saw it, she was teaching in a studio in it). Someone recently discussing something about Farrell said she was left two or three, didnt' they? The usual suspects will know for sure, I'm just putting this here to see if I remembered anything correctly.

Farrell was, I believe, given three, including Thais [this is misremembered - it should actually be Meditation, see carbro's next post!], which she performed after leaving NYCB. Anyone know the other two?

Also, Helene, I'm curious, what was the version that Taras insisted on?

I'm pretty sure Meditation was one (is that what you're referring to? I never heard of a Thais by Balanchine.) I know she staged it for her company's first season, but as far as I know, the performing phase of Farrell's career ended when she left NYCB. I believe that she also has Don Quixote.

You're entirely correct, it is Meditation. Serves me right for misremembrance!

In her autobiography, Farrell referred to performing Meditation with Mejia at several places in the US after leaving NYCB in the 70s. She was looking for repertory for one-off engagements and had contacted the NYCB to see whether being 'given' the ballet meant that she could indeed dance it wherever she pleased.

"Thais" is a reasonable mistake, since the "Meditation" from Massenet's opera Thais is the most famous piece of music by that name, and also because it's served as the score for several ballets, including a beautiful and famous one by Frederick Ashton.

But Balanchine's Meditation is set to OTHER music, to Tchaiukovsky's "Memory of a beloved place" (to give it the English title) and not to the excerpt from Thais.

Midsummer Night's Dream belonged to Diana Adams, who left it to her daughter. I may be wrong but I thought the daughter may have passed away, don't know who it would have gone to then.

You're right, Carbro. In the following discussion dating back from 2002

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...ost&p=53982
Leigh posted that:



Unfortunately, the link to the article doesn't work anymore.

In the following discussion (by the way, what a wealth of information in our archives ;-) ), Dale wrote that:

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...st&p=108370



and Manhattnik added:

I couldn't remember off the top of my head, but I posted on it when Russell made the comment in 2004:

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...taras++symphony



Re-reading Russell's description, I am that I did not remember it was Cage. When I heard Russell describe this, I wished that Cage had just given Taras the royalties for life, not the rights.

I recall reading somewhere that a large number of the ballets went to Tanaquil LeClercq.

Paul's original question must have an answer somewhere, but meanwhile, for what it's worth, the 1996 edition of Balanchine/A Biography, by Bernard Taper (first published in 1984), includes "a New Epilogue" of some eighteen pages, "Choreographing the Future", which includes a discussion of Balanchine's will, signed in 1978, five years before his death (and thus before he stopped making ballets). (Taper also contributed an article, "Balanchine's Will", to the Summer 1995 issue of Ballet Review, which might have some of the same information, but my life is so much in boxes these years, I don't even know if I have a copy). Taper's Epilogue also discusses the establishment of the Balanchine Trust, the Interpreter's Archive, and so on. Obviously ballets were given from one person to another outside the will, others were made afterward, or not mentioned in it in the first place, but I think it covers most of the situation.

Anyway, briefly, pmeja is right: "The will, when unsealed, specified 113 ballets, to be distributed to 14 legatees. Not all the ballets named were still extant. Possibly seventy-five were still available for performance...

"The three principal legatees... were Tanaquil Le Clercq, Karin von Aroldingen, and Barbara Horgan. About seventy percent of the rights were willed to them... Horgan and von Aroldingen were to share... all rights to those ballets not specified in [his will]. There were thirteen such late works...

"... to Tanaquil Le Clercq he gave the American performance royalty rights to eighty-five ballets, of which perhaps sixty were still actually viable."

Taper's discussion of Balanchine's will does not include a complete list of the ballets mentioned in it but confirms the discussion here so far in respect of Symphony in C, the three ballets willed to Farrell, and the sharing of rights to the unspecified ballets, such as Palais de Cristal (which Taper doesn't mention here either).

I was under the impression that an Executor is not allowed to be a beneficary of a will. So how does that work in the case of Barbara Horgan, who in different articles is stated as both.

Another point again concerning information on the Web (if it is reliable) states that the two initial founders of the Balanchine Foundation, were former associates of George Balanchine. Does that mean they were not his associates at the time of his death ? I do not have any books on him to check up. But I cannot find a mention of who they were. But there is mention of Barbara Horgan regarding the Foundation and Trust.

In the US, executors of a will are often beneficiaries (spouses, children). Besides, the executor of the trust (which was not stipulated in Balanchine's will but an entity established afterwards by some [not all] of the beneficiaries) is not necessarily the same as the executor of the will.

Ah, I'd forgotten. Thanks for your correction, emilienne. We're even!

You're right, Nanarina, Ms. Horgan is a beneficiary, she's given something in the will, along with the others, and she was also executor. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know much about the legal limitations placed on the executor, but from my experience executing a will and writing my own, I can say that the execution of a will is closely supervised by the appropriate court, down to requiring receipts showing what assets you collected and who you gave them to, and that the executor of an American's will must be an American (my first choice of executor happened to be Canadian) but there didn't seem to be any problem with his being a beneficiary, probably because of the close supervision by the court. So maybe this part is where you've got the wrong impression.

As to the George Balanchine Foundation, it keeps getting mixed up in people's minds with the George Balanchine Trust, founded, according to Taper again, on the advice of Balanchine's estate's lawyer, by Barbara Horgan and Karin von Aroldingen, two of Balanchine's "associates" -- his longtime personal assistant and a longtime personal confidant, I believe -- to create "a centralized entity", in place of the fourteen legatees, [which] "could facilitate the licensing of the ballets, foster their dissemination throughout the world, and make sure that performances would be authentic and of satisfactory quality. Patricia McBride and Rosemary Dunleavy joined Horgan and von Aroldingen in the trust. Tanaquil Le Clercq chose not to do so, but asked Horgan, as trustee-administrator. to represent her. Some of the other legatees have done the same. The trust went into effect on March 30, 1987. ..." So it's the Trust which controls the public performances of most of Balanchine's ballets, although of course this practice bears on preservation in the sense that a ballet scarcely exists if it isn't performed, and performed authentically. (My understanding is that a few, like Apollo, are so old, his rights ran out long ago, but I may be wrong.)

The George Balanchine Foundation, on the other hand, predates the Trust (Taper doesn't say when it was founded, but he says Horgan was president) but was "rather quiescent" until 1994 when it was funded by Nancy Reynolds with $1.75 million to "retrieve, document, and preserve Balanchine's work", for example, by bringing in some of Balanchine's dancers, then retired, to teach parts of his ballets to younger dancers, and to teach and demonstrate "crucial aspects of the Balanchine style and technique". All this would be videotaped; the ballet fragments can be seen in some repositories around the country (the world?), and some of the technique "essays" were released commercially by Nonesuch. So the Foundation is concerned more with preservation, rather than control.

(Thanks for your post, Nanarina; I used to think Reynolds founded the Foundation, but thanks to you, I read this section of Taper's book and learned better!)

Thank you so much Jack for looking up the details you posted.I had a vague idea about the diffferences between the Balanchine Foundation and Trust. It does seem to be very strictly controlled within their admionistration and mission statements, perhaps this is why they are so non flexible about the performance or accessibility of Balanchine works. It does seem wrong though that their (?) actions on YouTube if it is them who are causing removal of people's sites which contain totally unrelated work. I found this has affected my own YouTube playlists, as some of the videos I had on there were from Ket. and have also been removed (Marinsky Etudes).


According to the law in the UK regarding wills, evidently a person can be an Executor, and also a beneficiary, only if certain words are used in the details of the will stating this.But you are not allowed to witness a will. Also you do not have to use a court to oversee the estate. The Executor may have to obtain letters of Administration, or obtain probate. This can be by using a Soliciter or by going to the Probate Dept personally. When my Mother died 4 years ago I was able to sort her estate out myself, as her Soliciter had covered all eventualities in the writing of the will and it's witnesses.


Thank you so much again, enjoy your Ballet.

One reason why a "centralized entity" is counseled, but not actually required, in American wills is the access to that entity by a surrogate or other court having jurisdiction over the estate. They also like, but again, do not require, that witnesses live within about 50 miles of one another, for the same reason. I found this out when making my own first will (at age 23!) when I was in the Air Force. Later on, as a researcher, I found several examples of that system breaking down completely in military members' wills when all those named in the wills, testators, executors, witnesses, and beneficiaries all died within days of one another. Now, THERE would have been some interesting cases to watch going through probate!

??? I should think that would have been a nightmare. Would it have meant that if all the beneficiares had died within a stated number of days, the estate would have reverted to the state?
Here I think it is a total of 30 days has to elapse between the death and will becoming valid, than there is provision for the estate going to the next of kin regarding the original beneficiaries. Complicatesd or what!!!

Not as off-topic as you might think, Nana. The Taras/Cage "Symphony in C" is a similar complication. In one case, I was seeking a particular piece of personal property which had been given to a Colonel. In my research, I found that he had willed it to another officer, but that was a case where all the people in the will had been Killed In Action at the Battle of Gettysburg, PA (or at least had died as a consequence thereof in hospital shortly thereafter). The will was interesting, in that the court ordered that two living witnesses had to make positive identification of each signature to the will and supply exemplars for comparison. It made for a lot of witnesses, but in the course of research, I discovered that the presentation of the object had not been made to the Colonel, but instead to the State of New York, so it was never his anyway, but I found it. It was a flag, and its staff was clearly marked by the donor that it was given to the regiment, not the Colonel personally. I arranged for the flag to be returned to state custody and sent immediately to a textile conservation laboratory , to save it from any further deterioration. All parties involved were well satisfied with the resolution.

That is a really wondwerful story Mel, just shows how people can comandere things when they are not entitled too. But my mention of "state" is in a slightly different constext. As follows.

When someone dies in the UK, without leaving a will, they are classed as intestate. And unless someone who is entitled to their estate makes a claim, it is taken by the government.
On a regular basis the relevant department publishes a list of deceased persons who have left money, property etc without making a will. There are a number of firms who work to trace any heirs who can end up to be very distantly related to the decesed. Some are reputable but others as in life are not. However the reputable ones are known as Heir Hunters, and in fact there is a regular morning programme on television that features their work. They go to endles means to find the true people and get them to sign up for their services. Some times it is only a few thousands of pounds, others hundreds of thousands. Often with the beneficiares finding people who they had no idea existed in their family. I often watch it, it is on morning TV, and very fascinating, the ofrficers travel miles seeking out people, call at rergistry offices and other public bureaus to achieve success. There is often a race between more than one Heir Hunter once the list is published to be the first to contact the people.
It must be worth their while with the fees they command for their company or they would not do it!!!

In the US, the federal government has an interest in estates through the IRS -- i.e., the value of the estate and whether any portion is taxable -- and the state of residency has an interest both in terms of taxes (if there is a state estate tax) and in the way it is distributed, i.e., the state can have mandatory minimum distributions to spouses and/or children, regardless of the terms of the will, as well as define spouse (i.e. whether a spouse under a formal separation agreement is considered a spouse.) Each of the 50 states has its own set of estate law. There is no one federal set of laws.

Helene, This is where the two countries differ in the UK there is only (as far as I am aware) a Inhertance Tax, which is paid if the estate does not stay below a certain financial level. It can be paid at the owners request out of the proceeds of the estate before the funds are distributed to the beneficiaries as one payment to the Inland Revenue (Tax Office). There is no control or interest generated to the various County bodies, the only tax is payable to the central unit. Neither do I think any claim or control can be assumed by government/ County regarding a persons will. However there is a record office, where copies of people's wills are kept for reference purposes. This is often used by those into geneology research. and birth, death and marriage records are also kept for the same purpose.

As long as a will meets the legal requirements in respect to wording, and the correcrt information given concerning and signed by two witnesses, Once it is completed it is either kept by a Soliciter or the owner themselves.Until it is needed on the persons death. It is the usual practise that the will is read after the funeral.

Nana, most US States and the Federal government have a similar setup, as most of our law is inherited from the English system, with the exception of Louisiana, where the framework is the Code Napoléon.

Thanks Mel, sorry if I am being thick!! But does it mean that the State the person lives in and the Government can benefit from taxes on a deacsed persons estate? In other words there are two amounts of tax charged. Inhertance tax in the UK is only paid once on the estate.


Now back to Balancine, no wonder they are so rigid on the perforance of his work, there seems to be so many people involved, which makes you wonder if there is a high level of conflict internally in the organisation. I may be totally wrong in wondering about this, but in any event personal feelings can effect even members of a commitee. when decisions are being reached. It only takes one vote, to win an argument, so the "against" voters point of view loses out. (which can be a disavantage if they are more moderate kind of people) I would like to be a fly on the wall during one of their meetings (As long as they do not spot/swot me)!!! (imagine the smilie in black with wings) Sorry.

With thanks to Jack Reed for the tip on Taper, the following information is taken from the following sources:

Lobenthal, Joel. "Tanaquil Le Clercq". Ballet Review, Fall 1984 (12:3), pp 74-83.
Taper, Bernard. "Balanchine's Will". Ballet Review, Summer 1995 (23:2), pp 29-36.

I. The legacy
II. Annotated list of ballets named in the Legacy (or known at the time of my writing)
III. Financial appraisal of the legacy in question

According to Taper, the will was drawn up (with consultation with T Sysol) and signed on 25 May 1978 with one minor addition of a codicil dated 18 June 1979. Initially he valued the ballets at nothing - it was Horgan who had, in consultation with the IRS after Mr Balanchine's passing, set money value on the legacy. I'll write about that in a following post.

About seventy percent of the rights and all tangible assets (save for two gold watches to his brother Andre) were bequeathed to Tanaquil Le Clercq, Karin von Aroldingen, and Barbara Horgan. Verbatim from the text, p 31:

Horgan and von Aroldingen were to share foreign royalty rights to all but twenty one of the ballets named in the will and media royalty rights to all but twenty five, plus all rights to those ballets not specified in it. They were to also share in any other unspecified assets."

Later in that column:

"Le Clercq was given the American performance rights to eighty-five ballets, of which probably sixty are actually viable." Lobenthal's article does not state precisely the identities of these, just that they were stated by name in the will, I have reproduced the list in the following post.

There are, of course, specific ballets given, in alphabetical order by last name, which includes some of the chief legatees:

Diana Adams: Midsummer Night's Dream
Karin von Aroldingen: Serenade, Liebeslieder Walzer, Stravinsky Violin Concerto, Variations pour une Porte et un Soupir, Vienna Waltzes, Kammermusik No 2
Merrill Ashley: Ballo della Regina
Betty Cage: Symphony in C (later given to John Taras)
Rosemary Dunleavy: Le Tombeau de Couperin
Mrs André Eglevsky: Sylvia Pas de Deux, Minkus Pas de Deux
Suzanne Farrell: Meditation, Tzigane, Don Quixote
Barbara Horgan: Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet
Lincoln Kirstein: Concerto Barocco, Orpheus
Patricial McBride: Tarantella, Pavane, Etude for Piano
Kay Mazzo: Duo Concertant
Jerome Robbins: Firebird, Pucinella

In all, there was nothing given to Martins, the NYCB, or SAB. For further information on the backstage drama created by the bequeathment, consult Taper's article.

Horgan and von Aroldingen were the chief instigators behind the Trust and they convinced McBride and Dunleavy to deposit their ballet rights as well. I am sure that more have joined since, particularly as people have passed away or have retired from active participation in the arts. Interestingly, Taper notes that "[o]nce [the ballets were deposited in the Trust], the action was irrevocable" (33). Horgan acted as trustee-administrator for the Trust, though I don't know if she has continued in that role. The trust went into effect 30 March 1987.

Le Clercq did not join the Trust, but she did ask Horgan to represent her, something that (as Taper notes) some of the other legatees have done as well. I assume that the arrangement continued to her death.

I. The legacy
II. Annotated list of ballets left to the chief legatees
III. Financial appraisal of the legacy in question

Lobenthal, Joel. "Tanaquil Le Clercq". Ballet Review, Fall 1984 (12:3), pp 74-86.
(For anyone interested, Lobenthal also includes a very good videography of Le Clercq's various appearances on film.)

Of particular note is that the Four Temperaments was not listed in Lobenthal's article. This suggests that either Lobenthal's article is incomplete or that it is one of the unnamed assets that Horgan and von Aroldingen shared. Does anyone know for certain?

This list is from page 83 and is listed as ballets bequeathed to her and two other associates (presumably Horgan and von Aroldingen).

La Chatte
Apollon Musagète
The Gods Go A-Begging
Prodigal Son
Le Bourgeois Gentilhommes (two versions)
Cotillon
Mozartiana (it's unclear which of the five versions he meant)
The Seven Deadly Sins (two versions)
Le Baiser de la Fée
Card Game
Ballet Imperial (this is presumably the 'classical' version, as the Concerto is listed separately later in the list)
Mozart Violin Concerto in A Major
Danses Concertantes (two versions)
Waltz Academy
Night Shadow (both versions?)
The Spellbound Child
Divertimento
Renard
Symphonie Concertante
Theme and Variations (standalone 'classical' version presumably, as the full Suite version is listed later)
Firebird (1949 - which means that Robbins presumably has the rights to a later version - but which?)
Bourrée Fantastique
Trumpet Concerto
La Valse
À la Françaix
Tyl Ulenspiegel
Swan Lake Act II
Scotch Symphony
Metamorphoses
Harlequinade Pas de Deux
Concertino
Valse Fantaisie (probably the 1953 version - see later annotation for Glinkiana for the 1967? version)
Opus 34
The Nutcracker
Western Symphony
Roma
Allegro Brillante
Divertimento No 15
A Musical Joke
Square Dance (two versions)
Agon
Gounod Symphony
Stars and Stripes
Waltz-Scherzo
Episodes (I assume this is just the Balanchine sections and noninclusive of the Graham portion)
Modern Jazz: Variants
Panamerica
Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux
The Figure in the Carpet
Monumentum Pro Gesualdo
Donizetti Variations
Jazz Concert: Ragtime
Raymonda Variations
Bugaku
Movements for Piano and Orchestra
Clarinade
La Source
Harlequinade
Variations
Trois Valses Romantiques
Jewels
Glinkiana (probably includes the 1967? version of Valse Fantaisie)
Metastaseis and Pithoprakta
Slaughter on Tenth Avenue
Who Cares?
Tschaikovsky Suite No 3
Sonata
Choral Variations on Bach's 'Von Himmel Hoch'
Divertimento from 'Le Baiser de la Fée'
Scherzo à la Russe
Symphony in three Movements
Tschaikovsky Piano Concerto No 2
Cortége Hongrois
Coppélia
Sonatine
L'Enfant et les Sortiléges
Schéhérazade
Gaspard de la Nuis
Rapsodie Espagnole
The Steadfast Tin Soldier
Chaconne
Union Jack

If I remember the book correctly, Farrell says the first time she danced Meditation away from NYCB was for Bejart – she and Bejart had been talking about performing a Balanchine ballet, and it occurred to Farrell that one, Meditation, was hers. She writes off to confirm and Jacques d’Amboise arrives to coach Jorge Donn and Farrell.

I. The legacy
II. Annotated list of ballets left to the chief legatees
III. Financial appraisal of the legacy in question

Information for this post once again came from Taper - see part one for citations. All values are in USD. Please let me know if this is too much to paraphrase from my sources.

(Mr Balanchine took no salary for the first sixteen years of the NYCB's existence. Instead he drew $25/performance royalties for his ballets. He only began drawing a salary in 1964 upon donations to the company and school from the Ford foundation.)

Horgan, upon executing the will, was asked to value the ballets in consultation with Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendolsohn, they argued that because fees were low and because audiences were inevitably going to want novelty, that the IRS should not expect more than five years of posthumous income from them (42).

Their initial appraisal listed 89 ballets, itemizing royalties for three years before Balanchine's death. Average income per annum was 87 067.60, with some entries as follows:

Allegro Brillante: 11 480.11
Nutcracker: 8 173.34
Apollo: 972.12
Serenade: 4 410.84
Four Temperaments: 1 813.32
Tarantella: 13.22
Robert Schumann's "Davidsbündlertänzer": 286.67

The legacy was then presumed to be worth 190 691.37, which, as Taper notes, is "a figure the connoisseur of probate documents has to admire" (33).

After some haggling in April 1986 over a dozen unspecified ballets that may 'survive more than a few years", the adjusted value of the legacy was set at 550 000. Taxable value was fixed at 1 192 086.00, with federal taxes set at 300 562.00 and New York State tax at 69 787.80

So, apparently that's how much genius was worth on a tax document. In the initial years after Mr Balanchine's death, the company (or the board) discussed pursuing strategies that could possibly wrestle those rights back from the Trust or Le Clercq. At one point, Le Clercq was offered one million dollars for her rights, but she refused to sell (34). Eventually, the company was granted special licensing considerations that continues today.

Nana, it's involved with some 50 separate states, but in NY, for example, the State may be entitled to an inheritance tax if the estate is over a certain amount, somewhere around £350,000 right now, if I'm not mistaken. Other states don't have any inheritance tax. It's as if Duchy of Norfolk, for example, had an inheritance tax as well as the Crown (for those who decided to die in said Duchy).

I love the creative accounting used in appraising the value of the ballets!

The accounting of future income seems to be in direct contrast with the 'death boost' that some people's works receive at their passing, note for example the recent licensing bonanza of a certain pop singer. Experience has certainly show us otherwise!

Wow! Connect a scholar like emilienne with a good library -- I'm guessing the main University of Illinois library -- and stand back! Actually, have we quite got to answering Paul's original query for a list of who's got the rights to what today? Or maybe I'm still thick-headed this evening from the recent clock change (from Daylight Saving to Standard Time). I suppose nearly all of it is in the hands of the George Balanchine Trust, except for a few items like Symphony in C. So, no, I'd say this is not too much.

Does that long list come from the Lobenthal article, then? The rest, not to mention the page numbers and your statements, emilienne, makes clear your source, especially to someone like me who has read Taper (1996; Amazon lists an unavailable 1999 edition).

maybe this information could be some sort of sticky? because something tells me this question will come up again...

I couldn't have put it better myself. "Wow!" And thank you, emilienne, for your work.

I want to second pmeja's request for a sticky on this. Being old-fashioned, I've printed out emilienne's posts on PAPER and will save them inside my copy of the Balanchine Catalogue of Works.

Jack asks:Not completely, but we are on our way. PLEASE, if anyone has additional information about the ownership (or history of ownership) of specific ballets, continue to add them to this thread.

I wonder fellow posters : Can we rightly assume that George Balanchines work went from having no value, to what the Trust thought it was worth.and aquired. And which they have been receiving licence fees for since its foundation. I cannot help wonder if there is a financial reward generated for the personel who instigated the Trust.? And if there is financial compensation to those who gifted their legacies. Or does all the income go into the coffers of the Trust itself. Considering the value of the ballets he created, I wonder how the fees are arrived at in the licence costs (Are they worked out on s percentage of the value given to the work by the Trust committee?) Cnsidering the many companies worldwide who must pay. No wonder they are so keen to protect THEIR interests. I find it incredable that the NYCB , SFB and Peter Martins were omitted from the legacies. Am I correct in thinking Martins was GB's protagy? And does NYCB have to pay royalties to the Trust to perform their founders works. To sum up. is it possible the financial benefits are obscured by the damand for original Artistic integrity the Trust claims to represent. Though as a registered charity, it has the need to create income to pay the overheads.

Peter Martins got NYCB and SAB - some would say that was pretty generous.

I don't find it incredible that those people were omitted; I'd assume that somewhere was a clause "making up" for having been "passed over", such as freedom from some sort of fee or another. I had also assumed, though I may be incorrect, that leaving so many ballets to Tanaquil LeClercq was a way of making sure she had a living of some kind, and thought it very generous. If the Trust/Foundation/etc. assesses fees, well I'm also assuming that those working for them get paid a salary of some kind, the rest going to "taking care of business", etc. Lots of assumptions, and they may not all be correct, but they seem fairly logical, though reality may be otherwise.

I think you are right about the legacy to Le Clercq, pmeja; Balanchine seems to have been trying to look out for her.

Balanchine couldn't leave a ballet to everyone, of course, and he seems to have favored his ballerinas over his danseurs, not terribly surprising. Edward Villella did suggest in his book that he was a little hurt at having been left out, which I can understand - so many of the ballets made for him were really his.

I believe 4Ts was left to Edward Bigelow?

Taper (in 1996, anyway) has some things to say about two points raised above about not why Balanchine didn't leave anything to NYCB and did leave so much to LeClercq:

"... My own sense is that at the time Balanchine wrote his will, he had little confidence the New York City Ballet could survive his death. Nor did that anticipation trouble him as much as some might suppose. ... In his lifetime, he had been involved with perhaps a dozen ballet companies that had disappeared, at least half of them companies in which he had been the central figure, including four in the United States. ...
"In short, I think one best understands this controversy about the will by remembering that for Balanchine the company and the school mattered principally because of what they enabled him to do. They were his laboratory, and his showcase too, but never his memorial. Process, not finished achievement, was his passion."

And

"[LeClercq's] continued well-being, as someone who would always be confined to a wheelchair, was of acute concern to him, and he bore a burden of guilt at having left her in 1962 in vain pursuit of his newest muse... Of his four former wives -- or five -- LeClercq was the only one mentioned in the will."

.Jack now you have explained the possible reasons behind the actions that could have prevailed it makes sense why George Balanchine wanted to leave Lechercq' secure in the event of his death. Did he ever have any children to follow in his footsteps?

Considering the fact that the NYCB survives to this day, and is one of the top companies in the world
perhaps thanks to Peter Martins and his dedicated team. GB took the right action in handing the reigns to him. I feel sure he would be very proud and happy if he knew. To think his creativity lives on to this day is wonderful and his heritage has been preserved for the world of dance


I have found a list of his many ballets, whether it is totally correct I cannot say, but all the same I wish to post it as a a tribute to a wonderful Choreographer If you know of any missing works, would you please add them..

Nanarina's Tribute to George Balanchine sorry its rather excessive for me to type with my dodgy eyesight, but leonid has put a lin k on his post of what I was going to use.
`

At balletmet you can find a published list of Balanchines ballets together with a brief biography. See http://www.balletmet.org/Notes/Balanchine.html

It will be interesting Nanarina if you can find any errors or omissions in this list.

However earlier in the year Sarah Kaufmann stated, "Of the more than 400 ballets Balanchine created in his 79 years..." see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9050704620.html

Easy does it, Nanarina. As leonid implies, I think, the list would be a long one!

Certainly Balanchine's accomplishment deserves the celebration contemplation of it inspires. When we think of the number of works and the quality of so many of the ones we know, or knew, some of us find comparable precedent in the works of such artists as W. A. Mozart (who lived only half as long as Balanchine!) and William Shakespeare, but unlike them, what Balanchine made cannot be preserved by printing on paper, as you know: Ballets are perishable, even in the normal course of things when they are taught by older dancers to younger ones and kept in performance.

Yes, New York City Ballet continues, and continues to list many Balanchine ballets on its schedules, but among many of us who watched performances of his company, performing under his supervision -- I saw about 500 performances myself -- there is some controversy about whether these are authentically Balanchine's ballets or, in some extreme instances, caricatures of them. Most looked performed without that "inner understanding" they had. Consider why the George Balanchine Foundation began its Interpreter's Archive video series, showing role originators coaching younger dancers.

It looks to us like Peter Martins, NYCB's director, is little interested in maintaining Balanchine's ballets, and he seldom brings in originators of those roles to coach younger dancers, the usual, if not perfectly reliable, way ballets are maintained.

An outstanding company which does do this is Miami City Ballet, which I am traveling to see today, so I won't have a lot more to say about this controversy here right away or even have the opportunity to look for the threads discussing this topic which must be here. Certainly it deserves its own thread! But MCB's resources are more limited than NYCB's, and the Suzanne Farrell Ballet's even more limited, although they are both worth mentioning in this connection because (to many experienced eyes besides mine) they perform Balanchine's ballets very much in Balanchine's way, but within the limits of their much smaller budgets and consequent schedules.

Sarah Kaufmann's complaint is also being discussed at length in another thread here on BT.

Thank you leonid, for the links. The list I was going to use is in fact the balletnet.org you mentioned. I have counted, albeit with my dodgy eye sight, so I may have made errors, 429 listings. However some items include more than one work under a general heading.

I have also read the other link, it seems strange that the total number of Balanchines works are so
much lower than what this list gives according to the much higher number he created as suggested by the Washungton Post aerticle. Possibly the other mediums he choreographed for are included in the larger numbers, which we are unable to confirm nowadays.


This has been such an interesting thread, I like a lot of Mr "Bs" works, but not all of them. all the same I do not agree in what was written by Sarah Kaufman, only part of it. There should of course be room for other choreographers, but before success they have to face living up to the reputation of the ghost.

Jack Sorry I do not know anything about the two companies you mentioned, we hardley ever hear anything about American Companies unless it is NYCB and ABT. I have been getting Dance Europe for a few months now, which does broaden the horizons a little for me. I have never been to the US, but did see ABT recently in Le Corsair, and Houston Ballet in Cleopatra some years ago when they visited London. I am rather out on a limb here in Norfolk, certainly well away from the Londod scene.

We have a small Arts Centre at Kings Lynn, where the stage is so small, the visiting companies are rather low in the scale of things. Then we have a good theatre at Norwich, but again due to the size of the stage, we do not get the main stream visitors, Northern Ballet Theatre come, which is a reasonable co. But the days of English National Ballet, Ballet Rambert (origional( and the Royal Ballet Touring Co, are sadly long gone. Though we did get a small number of Birmingham R.B. dancers at Kings Lynn for the first time, and guess what they performed Balanchine!!

Balanchine left Tarantella to McBride, not Villella.

Check out William Weslow's chapter in "I Remember Balanchine." ("Woman is everything, man nothing, little insect, something like that." I actually can't quote it here, the language is unprintable.)

Weslow is extremely opinionated and VERY readable and he MAY BE exaggerating, but it looks lie he's describing what from his limited vantage-point he did see, and it jibes with the things Villella himself has said about how balanchine treated him -- the resentment about not taking his class, the way he wouldn't let him dance Tchai pas in London but had them do Tarantella instead -- the anecdote about Balanchine taking him to the costume dept and getting him up to look short and ridiculous.

I'm not putting Balanchine down.

It looks like he felt he owed his ballerinas -- they kept him interested, they were on his mind, the ballets are FOR them and should be theirs. It is VERY telling htat he provided for Leclercq.

He kept Allegra in the company to the very end even when she only danced one ballet all year....