great 20th century ballet music

[Mirror Image]

A great piece of music can stand on it's own, orfeo. Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe and Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet are two fine examples. Bartok's two phenomenal ballets The Miraculous Mandarin and The Wooden Prince are two other examples. These ballets can simply stand on their own without any dancing accompaniment whatsoever. I don't have a difficult time following anything when the music is this good.

And, no, you should spend more time with the complete ballets rather than the suites. The suites, in many cases, are nothing in the world but castrated versions of the complete ballet that cut out so much of the more interesting music that it just doesn't seem worth the effort, especially if the complete ballet is available.

[Daverz]

Sometimes I only want to listen to selections from R&J, such as the ones chosen by Ancerl or Mitropoulos.  However, I think the Miraculous Mandarin Suite should be retired, as some of the best music is left out.  The only excuse back in the day was that the suite fit on an Lp side. 

[Madiel]

A great piece of music can stand on it's own, orfeo. Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe and Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet are two fine examples. Bartok's two phenomenal ballets The Miraculous Mandarin and The Wooden Prince are two other examples. These ballets can simply stand on their own without any dancing accompaniment whatsoever. I don't have a difficult time following anything when the music is this good.

Well, thank you very much for being so certain in declaring me the problem.

[some guy]

orfeo, you do know the difference between implying and declaring, do you not?

Mirror declared nothing about you at all. The only declaration was about himself. You supplied all the rest. (And yes, I am sure about that. )

[Mirror Image]

Well, thank you very much for being so certain in declaring me the problem.

This...

orfeo, you do know the difference between implying and declaring, do you not?

Mirror declared nothing about you at all. The only declaration was about himself. You supplied all the rest. (And yes, I am sure about that. )

I made no such comment about you, orfeo, but merely stated that it was I who have no problems listening to ballet music and that I believe that a great piece of music doesn't have to be contained in the box in which it came, which this box, in this instance, is ballet. Like, for example, I can listen to RVW's Job, A Masque for Dancing and feel no need whatsoever to see what the plot of the music is or what the action would be like onstage. I simply follow the music on it's own path, which, as I mentioned, a great piece can stand on its own without the help of any outside influence.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I made no such comment about you, orfeo, but merely stated that it was I who have no problems listening to ballet music and that I believe that a great piece of music doesn't have to be contained in the box in which it came, which this box, in this instance, is ballet. Like, for example, I can listen to RVW's Job, A Masque for Dancing and feel no need whatsoever to see what the plot of the music is or what the action would be like onstage. I simply follow the music on it's own path, which, as I mentioned, a great piece can stand on its own without the help of any outside influence.

+1

Plots are completely secondary to music for me. Especially with ballet where the music is actually what I want to listen to. Kraanerg is one of my favourite 20th century ballet scores and I don't even know if it is intended to even have a plot actually....

I tend to study ballet scores form the 20th century to study orchestration rather than plot.

[Mirror Image]

+1

Plots are completely secondary to music for me. Especially with ballet where the music is actually what I want to listen to. Kraanerg is one of my favourite 20th century ballet scores and I don't even know if it is intended to even have a plot actually....

I tend to study ballet scores form the 20th century to study orchestration rather than plot.

What do you think of the ballets from Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, Ravel, Poulenc, Shostakovich, Roussel, and Copland (arguably the greatest composers of ballet in the 20th Century)?

[Mirror Image]

Sometimes I only want to listen to selections from R&J, such as the ones chosen by Ancerl or Mitropoulos.  However, I think the Miraculous Mandarin Suite should be retired, as some of the best music is left out.  The only excuse back in the day was that the suite fit on an Lp side.

Yes, I certainly don't have any problems listening to the suites (if they're well arranged and contain some of more interesting moments of the ballet). Like, for example, I love Shostakovich's suite to The Age of Gold. I agree that a ballet suite of Bartok's The Miraculous Mandarin doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

What do you think of the ballets from Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, Ravel, Poulenc, Shostakovich, Roussel, and Copland (arguably the greatest composers of ballet in the 20th Century)?

I really like the ones I've heard, but I haven't heard any Roussel before.

Oh and I'd like to add Ginastera to that list! And Grainger for The Warriors.

[jochanaan]

Yes, I certainly don't have any problems listening to the suites (if they're well arranged and contain some of more interesting moments of the ballet). Like, for example, I love Shostakovich's suite to The Age of Gold. I agree that a ballet suite of Bartok's The Miraculous Mandarin doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The Miraculous Mandarin suite consists of about the first two-thirds of the music, minus a few cuts, with an abrupt, newly-composed four=measure "concert ending" at the height of the Mandarin's dance.  As a teaser, it works well, but of course the entire last scene is cut.

[Mirror Image]

The Miraculous Mandarin suite consists of about the first two-thirds of the music, minus a few cuts, with an abrupt, newly-composed four=measure "concert ending" at the height of the Mandarin's dance.  As a teaser, it works well, but of course the entire last scene is cut.

Yes, which is why, in this instance, it's just better to have the complete ballet than the suite IMHO.

[Madiel]

I made no such comment about you, orfeo, but merely stated that it was I who have no problems listening to ballet music and that I believe that a great piece of music doesn't have to be contained in the box in which it came, which this box, in this instance, is ballet. Like, for example, I can listen to RVW's Job, A Masque for Dancing and feel no need whatsoever to see what the plot of the music is or what the action would be like onstage. I simply follow the music on it's own path, which, as I mentioned, a great piece can stand on its own without the help of any outside influence.

Yes, but in the cases we're talking about, the great music was expressly designed for the box. The suites are in fact the form that composers created for the sake of separate, non-visual consumption.

And I was expressly talking about how I felt the need for the box, which is why I took your comment somewhat personally. And while some of it was couched in terms of your own personal experience, statements like "A great piece of music can stand on it's own, orfeo" are presented as objective declarations. It wasn't difficult to feel that you were setting out to negate my personal experience, especially when you picked the exact same ballets I'd mentioned as examples of these great pieces.

[Mirror Image]

I really like the ones I've heard, but I haven't heard any Roussel before.

Oh and I'd like to add Ginastera to that list! And Grainger for The Warriors.

Ah, yes, I shouldn't have missed Ginastera. Love his Panambi and Estancia. I'd also add Villa-Lobos' Genesis, Emperor Jones, and Uirapuru to the list along with perhaps Chavez's Horse Power Suite.

[Mirror Image]

Yes, but in the cases we're talking about, the great music was expressly designed for the box. The suites are in fact the form that composers created for the sake of separate, non-visual consumption.

And I was expressly talking about how I felt the need for the box, which is why I took your comment somewhat personally. And while some of it was couched in terms of your own personal experience, statements like "A great piece of music can stand on it's own, orfeo" are presented as objective declarations. It wasn't difficult to feel that you were setting out to negate my personal experience, especially when you picked the exact same ballets I'd mentioned as examples of these great pieces.

When you start bringing up matters that I'm somehow attacking your opinion or your own experience is when I start shutting down, orfeo. My intentions were NOT to start some kind of argument with you about ballet music. I frankly don't really care that you struggle with the music. I'm simply saying that I have no problems with the music and listening to it outside of its box.

[(poco) Sforzando]

To revise my remarks from another thread, even Balanchine famously said that if you weren't interested in the dancing, you could close your eyes and experience a good concert. Nonetheless, unless one has actually experienced the dancing, I don't think one is in the position of saying "I just want to hear the music" or that the choreography is some kind of intrusive accompaniment that one can simply discount. Many of the great ballets (especially the Stravinsky-Balanchine partnerships) were created collaboratively, and the relation between the dance and music is integral and mutually reinforcing. Now I don't want Mirror Image or anyone like-minded to get all huffy on this point; I am simply suggesting that you actually experience some staged ballets before making your mind up.

It is absolutely true that many ballets exist coherently on their own as music, and I have no issue with hearing many great ballet scores as concert works. Stravinsky said he preferred Le Sacre as a concert piece, and on the few occasions I have seen it danced the experience has not been satisfactory. On the other hand, seeing Petrouchka made me realize how closely the music mirrored the choreography, with numerous small gestures in the music having significance that is clear only when the work is staged. And if you have never seen the famous "starburst" tableau at the end of Stravinsky's Apollo, then I would say you have not experienced Apollo. I've been fortunate enough to see this ballet danced live by the great David Hallberg, formerly of American Ballet Theatre and now with the Bolshoi, who is often spoken of as the finest American classical male dancer today, and also by the rising star Chase Finlay from the New York City Ballet.

Agon in particular takes on wholly new dimensions when you see it danced, in that Balanchine's choreography sets up a whole layer of visual counterpoint to the music. Just to point out some obvious examples, watch the very beginning and ending, how the line of eight male dancers begins the work with their backs to the audience and closes it by reversing the same pattern. Or the short internal prelude that is repeated exactly three times in the music, but each time uses a different configuration of dancers. The counterpoint between music and dance is at its most complex in the central pas de deux, which was famously (and for its time -1957 - radically) first danced by Diana Adams and Arthur Mitchell, a white ballerina and black danseur. It is as if the 12 dancers in Agon are a set of visual instruments adding new layers of orchestration to the musical work. I myself have seen Agon danced three times live by the New York City Ballet, and though I have heard the recordings many more times, the experience of seeing this work adds layers of dimension I still find inexhaustible.

Similarly, Bernstein's score for Fancy Free is great fun on its own, but it is even more fun in my opinion when seen with the choreography (the scenario of three sailors on shore leave in New York, meeting a couple of girls at a bar) that Jerome Robbins devised for it in collaboration with Bernstein. The work was a major hit when first performed in 1944, and still excites audiences today.

That said, the whole issue is complicated by the facts that (a) some ballets were choreographed after the fact to existing pieces, (b) some ballets like Nutcracker exist in multiple choreographies, (c) some ballets like Miraculous Mandarin and Jeux are heard more often in concert or recordings than seen on stage. And so I don't discount the idea of ballet-as-music; I simply suggest that until you've seen a fair number of danced ballets, you're not in a position to discount the dancing.

Here are some selections you can see for yourself (not in great visual quality, but absolutely free):

Agon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7vEOxL5cU
4 Temperaments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9dG6p5bFg
Bizet Symphony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wIQyNW1zOc
Fancy Free https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ou-O9Awkzo
Apollo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpiN_aFgRQ

[Monsieur Croche]

(poco) Sforzando, in the above post, has asserted some very salient comments on some of these great ballets, and I quite agree that when it comes to the Stravinsky-Balanchine collaborations, to not have seen the choreography and production is to miss out on a very strong element which does add that much more to 'just the score.' Balanchine knew more than a little how to read a score, and without literally animating the score, his choreography does shine light on the score itself, add counterpoints to the music almost as if another intelligent composer had written perfectly appropriate and intelligent additional parts for the score.

I was privileged enough to see the Joffrey company's recreation of the original production of Petrushka, [libretto, costumes, sets by Alexander Benois; choreography, Michel Fokine] and that is a ballet many cite as the perfect marriage of score and dance. The visual and the movement have such a synergistic relationship that every move onstage seems to propel the score, the score seems to propel the movement. The rich fantasy of the stage sets and costumes all go right along with making this one ballet a very full near to overwhelming experience when seen.

I don't think anyone meant to argue that where some of these great ballets have such an integral overall effect in their fully staged presentations that the listening to the score is completely an equal experience -- how could it be?

But to the point of listening to some of the suites vs the complete, well, the thing about a lot of the suites of these great ballets, all those by Stravinsky, Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe, the two Bartok Ballets, and a good handful of others, is that on the musical plane those suites are missing a good deal of what is best not missed.

The brutal pragmatic fact of concert suites extracted from these works is to generate more performances -- and income -- than would be possible waiting for as many programmed full productions of a ballet. With all the extremely heightened additional costs of materials and the attendant roster of so many additional paid personnel, the concert versions will get done many times over before even a few productions of the ballet would happen.

Those suites are also pragmatically planned and cut to length to readily fit on a standard length symphonic program to be, typically, one piece of the usual three or four comprising one program.

When considering auditioning these scores vs. seeing the full ballet production, that same criterion of what qualifies as a good tone poem [good program music] is a handy measure:
Good program music = a score which completely works for the listener without the listener having any knowledge of the music's program 

For a number of these great ballet scores listed here, that is quite true, i.e. you might miss a spectacularly integral and stunning ballet for which the score was the basis, but these complete scores stand fully on their own, without the listener needing to know anything about their libretto [program] or seeing the visual spectacle which they originally underscored.

I think listening to any of the suites from the Stravinsky ballets is tantamount to having been robbed, felony class. Ditto the suites from Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe, Bartok's Ballets, and a good several others.

Copland's larger orchestration of his Appalachian Spring suite cooked up a horribly 'corn starch' thickened [see what I did there?] piece which would have been best if it had never been served, while on the practical front, how do you get a lot of program play for your suite if it is for a chamber orchestra of thirteen players? lol.

A lot of the Prokofiev ballets are much greater in length than the European and American scores in this batch being discussed, and though some are quite strong all the way through, others do have not less-well written segments, but segments which are far less interesting, ergo, I think suites there [those selections well-made by the composer] are less of a loss. The same, imo, goes for many a Tchaikovsky ballet score.

I'm fond enough of what there is of Poulenc's Les biches in the concert extracts that it makes me want to know, and would like the chance and choice to determine for myself, if the absent balance of the score omitted from those extracts is as pleasing. His Aubade is a 'brief' enough work there has never been a pragmatic need to reduce that to a suite.

I have actually heard a few people say they listen to the Firebird suite, etc. 'because they do not have the time to listen to the full-length score.' If you get a recording, I think there is no real good rational or possible excuse to not purchase the full-length piece; with CD's and their playback equipment you can program the selections from the full score tailored completely to your whim. zOMG and puleeeze... unless you are one hundred and eight years old and know you're going to die the following day, the likelihood that you will 'have time' to listen to the full length piece is pretty damned good.

[Madiel]

When you start bringing up matters that I'm somehow attacking your opinion or your own experience is when I start shutting down, orfeo. My intentions were NOT to start some kind of argument with you about ballet music. I frankly don't really care that you struggle with the music. I'm simply saying that I have no problems with the music and listening to it outside of its box.

You know, this is (in its different way) more rude than your original response. Shutting down? Is this how you respond in real life if a conversation becomes difficult? Do you just declare that you're not talking to the person and walk off? How do you think that makes the other person feel about the concerns they were expressing?

This isn't about your intention, it's about me trying to convey how your tone came across. I'm well aware we're talking about my subjective reaction, but you're now communicating that you have absolutely nothing to learn from this exchange and that what I took away from this exchange has no value to you at all. Which I suspect means that any other time in the future that you have a similar situation with me or with anyone else, you won't learn anything about communication.

Telling me that you don't care is a nonsense. You replied to my post. You stepped forward and engaged in exactly that subject. You addressed me by name for the express purpose of replying to my thoughts. And now, because my reaction was not to your liking, you're invalidating it as unimportant.

I don't particularly want to take the conversation any further than this, but that is not a mature problem-solving approach.

[Mirror Image]

You know, this is (in its different way) more rude than your original response. Shutting down? Is this how you respond in real life if a conversation becomes difficult? Do you just declare that you're not talking to the person and walk off? How do you think that makes the other person feel about the concerns they were expressing?

This isn't about your intention, it's about me trying to convey how your tone came across. I'm well aware we're talking about my subjective reaction, but you're now communicating that you have absolutely nothing to learn from this exchange and that what I took away from this exchange has no value to you at all. Which I suspect means that any other time in the future that you have a similar situation with me or with anyone else, you won't learn anything about communication.

Telling me that you don't care is a nonsense. You replied to my post. You stepped forward and engaged in exactly that subject. You addressed me by name for the express purpose of replying to my thoughts. And now, because my reaction was not to your liking, you're invalidating it as unimportant.

I don't particularly want to take the conversation any further than this, but that is not a mature problem-solving approach.

It's rather unimportant whenever you're arguing with me about nothing. If you want to talk, then fine, let's talk, but the reason I responded the way I did to you is because you seem hellbent on analyzing every little nook and cranny of my post whenever you clearly missed the fine print. If you don't like the way I responded to you, then don't respond back and if you do respond back, how about we talk about the music? You're the only one here who has took any kind of offense to my initial post to you. You really should stop making a mountain out of a molehill and just let it go. I've already forgotten about it, I hope you can do the same. Truce?

Anyway, back to ballet....I've never felt drawn to dancing or watching it. Does this mean that I can't appreciate the art of it all? Absolutely not, but for all intents and purposes, I enjoy listening to music without anything accompanying it and I like drawing my own conclusions to the piece. Perhaps for many people they need the accompaniment, and ideally since a ballet was meant for dancing, this is no doubt the way to experience this music, but, as I said, I have no interest in dancing and if the music is good enough to stand on it's own two feet, then I need nothing else.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Anyway, back to ballet....I've never felt drawn to dancing or watching it. Does this mean that I can't appreciate the art of it all? Absolutely not, but for all intents and purposes, I enjoy listening to music without anything accompanying it and I like drawing my own conclusions to the piece. Perhaps for many people they need the accompaniment, and ideally since a ballet was meant for dancing, this is no doubt the way to experience this music, but, as I said, I have no interest in dancing and if the music is good enough to stand on it's own two feet, then I need nothing else.

Dance is hardly an "accompaniment" in ballet; it is the focal point of the art, and when some of the lackluster ballet scores that known as musique dansant in the 19th-century French tradition (Adam, Minkus, Delibes, etc.) are considered, it might be said that music is the accompaniment rather than vice versa. Some of this music, like Adam's score for Giselle or Delibes's for Coppelia, does little more than mark time and set generalized moods; while displaying a degree of charm, it is almost unlistenable for itself. It was perhaps only with the three major ballets of Tchaikovsky, and more decisively with composers like Prokofiev, Ravel, and Stravinsky, that ballet music emerged with the prominence we all expect from the best concert scores.

As I've said, I entirely support the idea of hearing ballet music as music-for-itself, but you are on firmer ground when you say that "ideally since a ballet was meant for dancing, this is no doubt the way to experience this music." Or rather one way to experience it. The fact, however, that you have by your own admission no interest, feel no need, etc., seems to me only a rationalization for a lack of curiosity. It is like a blind man saying he has no need to see. Personally it doesn't matter to me much if you never see a ballet, but I am writing not only directly to you, but to all others who may be reading these words, participants and lurkers alike. Sure, the Rose Adagio from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty is a fine piece to listen to. But no listening of that piece can compare to my experience seeing Paloma Herrera from ABT dance the title role, and hearing a sold-out crowd of 2800 bursting into an ovation as she completed her last set of turns en pointe balancing herself on one leg. Suit yourself, but some horses can't be even led to water, never mind made to drink.

[Mirror Image]

Dance is hardly an "accompaniment" in ballet; it is the focal point of the art, and when some of the lackluster ballet scores that known as musique dansant in the 19th-century French tradition (Adam, Minkus, Delibes, etc.) are considered, it might be said that music is the accompaniment rather than vice versa. Some of this music, like Adam's score for Giselle or Delibes's for Coppelia, does little more than mark time and set generalized moods; while displaying a degree of charm, it is almost unlistenable for itself. It was perhaps only with the three major ballets of Tchaikovsky, and more decisively with composers like Prokofiev, Ravel, and Stravinsky, that ballet music emerged with the prominence we all expect from the best concert scores.

As I've said, I entirely support the idea of hearing ballet music as music-for-itself, but you are on firmer ground when you say that "ideally since a ballet was meant for dancing, this is no doubt the way to experience this music." Or rather one way to experience it. The fact, however, that you have by your own admission no interest, feel no need, etc., seems to me only a rationalization for a lack of curiosity. It is like a blind man saying he has no need to see. Personally it doesn't matter to me much if you never see a ballet, but I am writing not only directly to you, but to all others who may be reading these words, participants and lurkers alike. Sure, the Rose Adagio from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty is a fine piece to listen to. But no listening of that piece can compare to my experience seeing Paloma Herrera from ABT dance the title role, and hearing a sold-out crowd of 2800 bursting into an ovation as she completed her last set of turns en pointe balancing herself on one leg. Suit yourself, but some horses can't be even led to water, never mind made to drink.

Well, you're making it out like I'm on the wrong side of the tracks. It's the music that I care about --- everything else is superfluous. To your surprise, I have actually seen a ballet on television (Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake to be exact) and, quite frankly, I just wanted to hear the music. Like I've mentioned so many times already, good music stands on its own despite whatever 'stage' it was written for.

The bottomline is our experiences and preferences are just that: our own and I'm not going to be convinced one way or another that there's a right or wrong way to enjoy music. Draw your own conclusions.