I think that Aya having raised the issue of dance (via the Neumeier ballet of “D in V” (see particularly the Youtube excerpts from the Liceu and the Fenice productions, and Janie’s having brought in the question of the first (childhood?) experiences of adaptation bring us to several different levels of understanding the relation between original and derivative work. The obvious point that the Palmer production of the Britten is very much more “balletic” than the Visconti film, in which there’s hardly any movement at all, let alone dance, might very well lead us to consider whether certain works are crying out to be released from their inaugural media into something more “rich and strange” , and whether Schopenhauer’s formula for the “frozen music” of architecture is not a potentially productive way of accounting for particularly fruitful cross-media states of adaptation (figure/ground etc.) E.g., could we “play” the Velasquez/Bacon sequence backwards, with Velasquez as a derivative, secondary version of Bacon? Cf. the Berg violin concerto and the Bach cantata that Berg denied as a source? More puzzles.