For the second ballet piece we see in class, Appalachian Spring was very interesting to watch. Compared to Stravinsky, the chaos has calmed down in the music while the relationship I wrote about in my previous post continues. However, to me the music takes a more secondary role in this production than the previous.

I must admit that the slower and simpler piece by Copland made it a captivating one. Few characters and minimalistic composing make it easy to follow, and easy to get caught up in. I would follow the story that is being performed and the music would take more of an accompanying quality than for Stravinsky, where either one (music or choreography) could have been considered principal. For Copland’s, the story unravels in a way that seems unrelated to the music, as if the music changed for the story. Additionally, the energy that is represented in the choreography also shadows the simple tunes. Most of the dancing involves charismatic movements accompanied by a huge smile, to which the music follows with slower and continuous play. When the music picks up it is still overshadowed by even more energetic choreography, and made me pay attention for story developments (e.g. ~4min in part 3). I guess what I am saying is that for Stravinsky I could use both parts to complement each other, for Appalachian Springs I mostly look at the music to comprehend the performance, but not the other way around.

Another point that I would briefly like to address as well is how the music created tension at points were the performance did not, and vice versa. For example, at 7min in the second part, the preacher(?) seems excited or eager to see something, but the music doesn’t convey it as I would’ve expected. This created some moments where I would question where the story was going, or what the characters were actually doing.