This thread has been very interesting and it was great to read all the different opinions. It seems to me that we need to differentiate what repeating programs mean to a viewer and what it means to a skater. For the viewer, it's simply an entertainment factor, or lack thereof. It's much more than that for a skater.
First of all, I don't agree that the choice to revisit a program (no matter how much of the choreography or music is unchanged) should reduce a skater to either 'lazy' or 'clever'. The primary purpose of music and choreography is to provide a stage for skaters to showcase their technical and artistic abilities in the best possible light for the judges to judge. Elite skaters have worked too hard to get where they are to sacrifice this stage, especially at the Olympics, because they are too 'lazy' to learn new choreography or find new music. I thought this description was quite interesting from
this site:
Artistic and Interpretive events do not improve a skaters basic ability to skate. They are merely a format in which the skater can present his competence for evaluation and/or comparison. If they think or know that there is a better way to present their skills, and they have the resources and ability to do so, why would they not do that? Who would want to handicap themselves at this time and not give their 110%? It is not what they can do for the choreography/music but what the choreography/music can do for them. That is why people still use warhorses so much. They are well-tested to provide all the necessary climaxes and structure to enhance the elements and also do all the heavylifting of setting up the theme and story.
If it is better for a skater to create a new program, they will. Some people get sick of their choreographies and need a fresh start to get through a new season, or perhaps the new choreographies will significantly help to showcase or help to upgrade their skillsets better, artistic or otherwise. If not, there's no reason for them to have new programs for the sake of having new programs if they can achieve what they want with the same programs. It really depends on what kind of improvements and goals the skaters themselves set out to achieve. On the other hand, having new programs every season does not implicitly imply great progress in artistic skills. Versatility is the ability to do different things well, not the
attempt to do many different things. Which leads to the next point.
The Olympics is not the place to be risky and try completely new things. That would be very antithetical to how many skaters clearly treat the Olympics, which is that it is the event to present their best self to the entire world and not as an event to see if they can
perhaps successfully tackle a new set of artistic skills (which is what having completely different styles of choreography/music would allow them to do). That is something they do in the seasons between the Olympics, where they can experiment, make big changes and learn new skills. See what sticks and what don't. I don't think the ISU makes major changes in the scoring only after each Olympics because of convenience. The sense of a culminating quad is there and you don't suddenly change directions when you are reaching the end if you are already on the right track.
I think skaters' and trainers' opinion is just the opposite (and they are the learned in the topic): previous years are the time to try new things and take risks, and after that, try to deliver perfect in the Olympics
