I think it's probably both an affinity for it and something that can be learned...the best choreographers have both going for them.

In terms of my own love of choreographing, and I would actually largely credit the fact that I literally grew up on music videos (anyone remember "Video One with Richard Blade"? Pre-MTV, that one) and have therefore always thought of music in a very visual way. I know that may sound lame, but it's totally true. Before I even was a dancer I was imagining how people should move to certain songs, etc. and I think it's a direct result from watching probably hundreds of dance sequences and other visual stylizations to popular music.

I also remember seeing a phenomenal ballet company (don't remember which) do an amazing piece to "O Fortuna" from Carmina Burana, and it blew me away. I just didn't know people could DO that! After that, the doors were blown wide open.

As for what makes a good choreographer...I would definitely agree with all of your elements with the addition of one: a very keen sense of communication in terms of what they are visualizing. Verrry important.

I suspect a lot of these things come from being a well-rounded dancer oneself.

The more we take in of dance (not just our one style either), and the more we experience in life, the more rounded we become as people and have more to draw on when we express ourselves in dance.

Dennys from Turku recently gave me a book called "The Art of Making Dances" by Doris Humphrey. I popped it open a couple weeks ago, and it's chock full of glorious wisdom about creating dance choreographies. I'm thinking of making it required reading for my company.

i'm not really a choreographer myself...not yet anyway..haven't been brave enough...but from what i can see is that the best choreographers seem to have a background in basic dance training...including ballet/ modern/ etc and they are constantly training with other teachers to expand their dance knowledge...they also have a great sense of rhythm and a feeling for the music and the emotion behind it... there is no point in choreographing a dance if there is no feeling behind the moves... an understanding of how the body moves and what is best for the joints etc is also important otherwise dangerous moves could be included that will harm the body... i think its like any artistic pursuit...u can love what ya do and go for lessons...but great artists have an innate talent that comes through with proper training and encouragement!

What makes a good artist a good artist? Impossible to answer. It is the convergence of interest, training, and natural propensities.

I am of the strong belief that not everything is for everyone in this life. I know that is not a popular belief, particularly among my generation where we were told we could be anything we wanted. I think it's important to pursue our passions, but that doesn't always mean we will excel at it. I think the most important message is that even if we are not great at that which we love, we continue to do it for the love...what brings us joy, we must honor....but I digress.

I know for myself, I was ALWAYS choreographing dances, from the time I was a little girl. From when my brother and I would make up dance and acro-balance routines together in our living room, to when I was writing plays in elementary school and staging them for school productions with my friends, to making up floor and balance beam routines with my friends on my gymnastics team, to high school when I was choreographing dances for my cheer squad or dance/drill teams, to learning dance in drama productions in high school and college, to making playful choreographies with my friends in a public park just because we felt like it, to college when I skipped out on registering for classes toward my major to take ballet, jazz, and modern and making routines with my dorm-mates, and well beyond into my adult life in various dance classes eventually culminating in a love of Middle Eastern Dance... Even without always being in formal classes, I was always dancing, always thinking of ways to compose movement to music or characters. And when I couldn't find outlets for these instincts, I was frustrated.

Frankly, I wish my Mom had put me in more formal dance classes throughout my life, because in retrospect, I was ALWAYS DANCING, even when I wasn't officially dancing... But even without always having formal training in it, something in me was always calling me back, and I found I had a natural knack for hearing music (I did casually play some instruments, as well as choir and musical theater throughout as well), and for understanding how music could drive movement.

Not everyone has these same experiences and memories, but I think it is through this constant exposure to music dance in various forms it simultaneously seeped into my being, and was welcomed heartily by my natural tendencies for dance and music.

I think some people have to try a lot harder and train their instincts more dilligently. And I think some people are far more skilled than I am with less formal experience than iI have had. Frankly, there is no one formula for success in any field, and certainly this is true for art.

But if you are asking how someone who is just starting out might begin to hone this instincts much later in life, that might be another approach to the discussion entirely...

Oh and I would add that the best choreographers I have ever experienced in all fields of dance were not necessarily the best dancers, but they:
a) were fantastic at "telling stories"
b) possessed a strong spatial sense (being able to visualize spaces, movement, and shapes)
c) for group choreographies, were articulate and charismatic leaders (this does not always mean *nice* or *friendly*, but possess charisma and language skills which transcend these virtues to drive dancers to new heights)
d) had a grasp of energetic flow: both between the performers onstage, and between the performers and the audiences they were intending to reach.

I have found that some great choreographers are also great judges of movement and choreography of others (like dance critics), as well as having a (though seemingly unrelated) great eye for art, design, decoration, fashion, etc. It is the capacity to observe the elusive elements of balance, texture, color, energy, flow, white-space, connection, pulse, rhythm; and tie it all up in a package of intention and message that makes a great artist in any genre. And oftentimes these skills overlap between many disciplines.

I also recommend Doris Humphrey's book, as well as "The Creative Habit" by Twyla Tharp. As for the answer to your question... read up on the most renowned choreographers, and you'll discover that each one has a method almost totally unique to themselves. Balanchine was gentle and thoughtful, Bob Fosse coached each of his dancers with emotional thoughts, Jerome Robbins was (errr um) VERY difficult and often choreographed three or four options for each phrase and then made dancers try different combinations, Merce Cunningham and Paul Taylor used chance and "everyday" or even mechanical movements, Martha Graham was inspired by myth and the back... the list goes on and on and on. There have been fads in choreography from strict notation to pure chance, including chance on the night of the show where dancers didn't even know which parts of the choreography they'd be doing. Sometimes, choreographers made the audience decide!

I'm a big fan of Twyla Tharp's general approach, which is: be prepared for anything. I really admire choreographers like her (and many others) who go out and learn everything they can so that when inspiration strikes they already have the tools they need. The other aspect of choreography that I consider important is a choreographer who is able to recognize and utilize the individual strengths of their dancers. They know what their dancers are capable of and allow them to show themselves at their best, as well as giving them challenges.

I think watching choreography is very important, too. Understanding how to make something more dynamic on stage is one thing, but frankly, you gotta go see a lot of dancing. Once you develop an eye for what YOU find dynamic and interesting on stage, pay attention, and pay attention to what you find UNinteresting. Ask yourself why - why why why why why. Why didn't I like the costuming? Did it not move correctly with the dancers, was it unflattering, was it distracting? Why didn't I like the choreography? Was it because the dancers had a low skill level, or was it the choreography itself? Did it not flow? Did it seem to ignore the music in important ways, or follow along with it too closely? What am I mean to see in this? Was I taken anywhere, or did I just sit here watching dancers?

I will say that I find dynamic grouping very important, and I think it's one of the most overlooked areas of bellydance. So many groups tend to stand in a stagger, and aside from ATS that is a very uninteresting set-up to stay in for a long period of time. Big flat lines don't interest me. Groups in various levels, diagonal lines, etc. - much more interesting to the eye. The same is true in a lot of art. Unless the -point- of the piece is to be monotonous (which definitely has a time and place and use), people generally enjoy variety whether it is auditory (a song that rises and falls) or visual (perspective in a painting). By the way, I love Mark Rothko's paintings, so I'm obviously not against straight lines entirely! But since you've worked in in a theatre, think of stage blocking - people walking back and forth across a flat pane on the stage, versus people moving down or upstage. The energy totally changes.

As for predicting the audience... tricky business. Audiences are made up of individuals, and just like all the various choreographers above, each individual is going to have their own preferences. Some people love story ballets and only want to see princesses in tutus, because they feel so happy when they watch it. Other people watch a story ballet and feel like their eyes are going to melt out of their head with boredom. Both people are correct! It's just that the first person has found something they like, and the second hasn't yet. The second person needs to keep looking for what they want out of art, then support that. In this way, ballet can thrive alongside bellydance alongside hip-hop alongside biomechanical modern dance. So if you have a clear, purposeful piece, performed well, the people who want what you have to offer will be able to enjoy it. And those that don't, well, they gotta keep looking.

Urm... yeah! I suggest reading up on the Modern dance movement, since that contains a whole lot of questioning and experimentation with what is and is not dance, what is and is not art, what makes a dancer, what should be rebelled against, and a whole lot of interesting choreographic tools.

Also, I highly recommend listening to and watching Cera Byer of Damage Control Dance Company. She knows her stuff, and she's written a few really thoughtful threads on the craft of choreography in bellydance and the place of the choreographer. Her work shows her skill in this area, and I really think she produces some amazing stuff.

I'll end this babble with a video that I find extremely inspiring. Judson Dance Theatre was a group of early Modern dancers who wanted to really experiment with dance. Contact improvisation (what the video is of) came out of this, operating on the idea that dancers should maintain a point of contact at all times and never fight gravity. At first, this was a dance style in and of itself, and now many, many people use it as a choreographic tool. I think it's beautiful and amazing, because it requires so much trust and strength. Enjoy: www.youtube.com/watch