George Balanchine’s JEWELS is returning to Boston for the first time in more than a decade this fall. Distinguishable by its three shimmering sections: Emeralds, Rubies, and Diamonds, the ballet showcases the best of Balanchine’s signature styles. Moreover, the program is set to the work of three quintessential ballet composers: Gabriel Fauré, Igor Stravinsky, and Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky. We asked Boston Ballet’s Music Director Mischa Santora questions about these composers, their backstories, and their roles in the creation of Jewels.
Can you give insight as to Balanchine’s selections of Fauré, Stravinsky, and Tchaikovsky, and how he chose them as his composers for Jewels?
It’s my first encounter with Jewels and it’s a very unusual piece. Also, a very unusual ballet in the sense that it’s really a full-length abstract ballet, and there aren’t many of those. On the surface, he [Balanchine] wanted to create a testimony or homage to different styles of ballet, and of course, the three countries that he had a connection with are also very important to dance, and ballet in particular: Russia, France, and the United States.
So, then you look at the music and it makes perfect sense that for Russia—and that means imperial Russia, Tsarist Russia, 19th century—he picked Tchaikovsky, just about the most iconic ballet composer that he had associations with. Then for France, it’s very interesting he picked Fauré, and the particular Fauré pieces he selected are also equally interesting. Then for the more 20th-century contemporary form of ballet, he of course picked his longtime collaborator, Stravinsky, to feature the Piano Concerto.
As far as Tchaikovsky is concerned, Balanchine choreographed a lot to Tchaikovsky. It’s interesting that he picked one of the earlier symphonies for Jewels. Symphonies 4, 5, and 6 are incredibly beloved, masterful, well-known, and played all the time in the symphonic repertoire, whereas symphonies 1, 2, and 3 much less so. It’s beautiful, well composed music, but I do see a pattern where sometimes Balanchine actually picks pieces that are every bit as good as the others, but less well known. I think it has to do with the fact that he might have felt more freedom to create on top of those, as if the canvas was not completely full.
In the case of Fauré, he’s a romantic composer, but he’s on the cusp of the avant-garde French style, the impressionistic style, and there are snippets of that in these works. That, to me, is a really interesting combination of musical language that he uses and plays with in the choreography.
Then of course, Stravinsky’s work is what we would generally consider his neoclassical style, strongly associated with his American works—it’s bubbly, very energetic, modern—but there is still plenty of “old world.” It’s a re-envisioning of the classical style in his own vernacular, with his own sounds and energy, but also deals with the newness of the country at that time, the energy, and the dynamic history.
How did the music of these composers come to be, and what were they originally made for? Were any of them special to Jewels?
In the case of Tchaikovsky and Fauré, they are pre-existing compositions. With Stravinsky, he and Balanchine had collaborated a lot at that point [1967, when Jewels premiered]. Their work together is one of the greatest, most fertile collaborations between artists in the 20th century. The two men had much in common in terms of aesthetics, backgrounds, and being in a completely new place where there weren’t cultural restrictions. Where you had the freedom—but also the pressure—to create something new. I think that is something present in Stravinsky’s music that Balanchine was naturally drawn to it, and they formed this incredible partnership for decades.
Are there specific sounds that you’d associate with each of the three ballets? Thinking in the literal sense of the ‘jewels,’ are there descriptors that make you think of each one?
To me, Tchaikovsky is the composer that brings associations to tsarist Russia in all its glory. I listen to his works and often I feel like I’m in the middle of a novel by Tolstoy, for instance. It gives you this canvas of what life in Russia was like, this kind of boundless opulence where everything is gold, gilded, and red velvet, you know? Very lush and romantic. It’s really an era, and also where ballet comes from.
What’s interesting historically is that Tchaikovsky was regarded by some of his contemporary composers as not Russian/nationalistic/patriotic enough. They felt like he was actually too refined, too European, too classicistic. So, it’s interesting that we associate Tchaikovsky with all things Russian, while during his lifetime some of his contemporaries did not.
The thing about Stravinsky is that it is such iconic neoclassicism. He moved away [from Russia] after his opening three original Russian ballets: The Firebird, Petrushka, and The Rite of Spring. He became this stunningly avant-garde scandalous modern composer who tore down traditions in classical music.
He then moved back to a style that drew from the classics but reinvented them. Of course, the piano was a very important instrument for him, it’s featured in many of his orchestral works. The percussive nature of the piano really suits him well. He likes it, takes inspiration from it, uses that kind of percussive quality in the orchestra as well. It gives a certain kind of clarity, a ripping drive, a kind of energy.
