Rachel Harney

MUS 404
December 2009

An Example of Neoclassicism in Stravinsky’s Music

Preface

Before beginning this paper, I knew of Stravinsky. Everyone knows about

the Rite of Spring and I had acquainted myself with the Octet and Symphonies of

Wind Instruments, but had yet to dive below the surface to get to know Igor

Stravinsky. This has been an interesting journey into his life, and I found much

more than I anticipated. Because there are so many different facets of

Stravinsky’s life, I chose to begin with his pathway to neoclassicism, which

connects directly with the Octet. I have also read two very different analyses, one

from Marianne Kielian-Gilbert discussing the structure of the Octet and another

from Ethan Haimo discussing how to analyze the pitch content of the first

movement. Rather than regurgitating exactly what they have, I have gone

through the first movement combing the two different methods to create my own

analysis of the movement.

Road to Neo-classicism

In 1923, Boris de Scholzer was the first to apply the term néoclassicisme

to Stravinsky in a manner that “matches the current usage in its characterization

as a musical idiom” (Messing 79). While many associate neoclassicism with

Stravinsky, the term had been used in various manners prior to World War I.

According to Scholzer, while the term had been used previously as “an

attachment to the past by the use of the surface design of eighteenth-century

associated with German instrumental music, particularly that of Brahms and

Mahler, around 1900” (Messing 79). The terms nouveau classicisme and

néoclassicisme prior to 1923 carried different meanings, but they contained a

common vocabulary: abstract, absolute, architectural, pure, concise, direct, and

objective (Messing 79). French music strove to be “anti-sentimental.” This idea

was to get away from German Romantic ideals, which employed much

chromaticism, impressionism, and was “accused of destroying the clarity of the

eighteenth century” (Messing 76). This became the music of Schoenberg and

“anarchists” who took chromaticism to atonality. The polar opposite, Stravinsky,

transformed during the decade of WWI and built a definition of neoclassicism that

would be used from 1923 on.

From 1914-1923, the evolution can be seen through the study Stravinsky’s

music through four general topics mentioned in Messing’s Neoclassicism in

Music: simplicity, youth, objectivity, and cultural elitism. Post WWI, composers

wanted “straightforward expression in its simplest form” and a particular influence

on Stravinsky was Erik Satie. Stravinsky was inspired by Diaghilev’s “rudimentary

piano technique” (Messing 76) to create child-like, simple piano music, such as

Three Easy Pieces. This was not uncommon in contemporary French music.

Stravinsky was against impressionism and instead claims his music as absolute

without programmatic expression. Symphonies of Wind Instruments is absolute

music and is an example where Stravinsky simplified his music even more by his

careful choice in instrumentation to display various tone colors. Last, cultural

Diaghilev gave him this idea that tied the music to the past and connected it to

the “cultural elitist notions that looked upon Germans as corrupt and decadent”

(Messing 76). All of these came together become what we now consider

neoclassical.

Pulcinella (1919-1920) was a turning point for Stravinsky. He states,

“Pulcinella was my discovery of the past, the epiphany through which the whole

of my late work became possible. It was a backward look, of course – the first of

many love affairs in that direction – but is was a look in the mirror, too”

(Soundings 313).

Stravinsky’s Octet was the first neoclassical piece that did not use

borrowed thematic material. Instead, through style and form “the eighteenth was

recalled with such vitality and sense of originality that the viability of the approach

was seal” (Soundings 316).

History of the Octet

Stravinsky wanted to develop his musical ideas in the domain of a

symphony (Stravinsky 103). According to Robert Craft, sketches of the Octet

were seen in 1919 when Stravinsky was writing the Piano-Rag Music and

Symphonies of Wind Instruments. Other sketches were seen in 1921. Stravinsky

did not have a specific instrumentation in mind. He began drafting the first

movement Allegro, around the time of Mavra. He decided to avoid strings

because of their expressive tendencies as well as characteristic instruments such

two trumpets, and two trombones. The Octet was finished in May 1923 and

Stravinsky himself conducted the premier on October 18, 1923 in the Paris

Opera House at a Koussevitzky concert (Stravinsky 109).

The piece has three movements: I Sinfonia, II Theme and Variations,

which goes directly into III Finale. The Octet uses various classical forms,

baroque textures, combined with the composer’s own diatonic and octatonic

language (Cross 103). One can easily see connections to Bach, Mozart, and

Haydn within the piece. Bach is recreated many times throughout the piece

including the “invention-like” theme of the Allegro, and the fugato in the second

movement. Mozart often used theme and variation forms and his own famous

wind octet. Haydn can be represented in the largo introduction of the first

movement.

First Movement

The first movement is titled “Sinfonia.” Stravinsky created this movement

within the confines of the classical symphony’s first movemet, sonata-allegro

form. It has a Lento introduction from measure 1-41 ending on a V 7/Eb chord,

which leads right into the Allegro moderato. The theme is clearly stated in Eb.

The second theme occurs at rehearsal 9 and is passed through different pitch

classes until the development at rehearsal 14. This is very unstable which

parallels a traditional development. The recapitulation is turned around and the

second theme shows up at box 18. Finally, the first theme returns at box 21 and

brings the movement to an end.

the article “Problems of Hierarchy in Stravinsky’s Octet” by Ethan Haimo, he

seeks a way to analyze this movement in a way that may be related to other

neoclassical works by Stravinsky. The Kielian-Gilbert article looks at the piece

from a structural point of view counting the number of quarter note in each

section and looking for symmetry. Surprising they do not say the exact same

things.

Through this analysis, I have become familiar with how music like

Stravinsky’s can be analyzed. Haimo refers to referential pitch collections. A pitch

collection is named after the major scale it employs. Sometimes the name of the

scale may not be the tonic. Pitches in the referential pitch collection are

considered stable and elaborative tones are not stable. They may be prolonged

in the same voice, but they must resolve in that voice by either half or whole step

to a more stable note. They do not have to be approached by step. “Using these

rules of syntax, it is possible to demonstrate that a number of passages, quite

chromatic on the surface, have simple diatonic referential framework” (Haimo

47). I will be referring to some of these terms in the following analysis.

The lento introduction, modeled after those of Haydn and Mozart, begins

on Bb, the dominant on Eb. Within the first four bars, we already see Stravinsky

playing his games with rhythm and hiding of the bar lines. The beginning phrase

begins on beat one and immediately after, it shifts to beat two. The introduction

has a beautiful, almost haunting quality. Beginning at box 1, he changes meters

almost every bar. It is in this way in which he differs from the likes of Haydn and
Mozart. While their phrases are very structured and easy to spot, Stravinsky

masks his cadences and does not follow the tradition harmonic progressions of

the past. Instead, he mainly focuses on the counterpoint rather than the harmonic

structure. The oscillating movement in the flute and clarinet stay fairly consonant

and the lines in the bassoon help create some of the dissonances in the

passage. Stravinsky builds up tension and then usually resolves it to right at the

cadence at the end of a phrase, example: 3 eighth notes after box 2. At box 2

everything is moved up a step to C. From box 2 to 4, he moves through different

pitch centers, much like a modulation or transition in a classical symphony. At 4,

we come to Db, and the trumpets and trombones play unfitting harmony below

the woodwind lines. All of this leads to the dominant seventh chord of D, A7, and

the beginning motive resurfaces beginning on that note. The very last chord of

the introduction brings us back to where it started with a Bb seventh chord

looking to finally be resolved.

Looking at this introduction, I have found that I must analyze this piece

very differently than I am used to. Because Stravinsky creates this music almost

solely out of counterpoint, not all of the harmonies are supposed to fit together to

build your typical I-V-I progression. In Haimo’s analysis, he notes that the

introduction is “an extended statement of the Eb collection” and is a “tonal

upbeat, setting the stage for the structural arrival that will be coincidental with

clear tonic definition.” If we outline some of the movement of the introduction, we

can see what Stravinsky’s intentions may have been.

He begins on Bb, V of Eb. This immediately establishes an unstable

instability. Beginning at box 2, he moves through C-Db-D, not your typical

progression. The end of the introduction begins with the V of D. Again, we have

this sense of instability. And finally he returns to V7 of Eb, with D in the bass. The

bass line moving from that D to the following Eb also reaffirms the tonic. Though

the introduction plays with various tonics, the referential key center is almost

completely Eb. When the beginning comes back in D, the A natural is actually a

prolonged elaborative tone that resolves to Bb, which is why it feels so unstable.

So in short, the introduction creates an anxiousness to see what is ahead and

builds the anticipation up to that last chord. Next we hear the first theme of the

Sinfonia in, of course, Eb.

The Sinfonia takes off with a tutti section and the theme in the trumpet 1

part. This is clearly in the key of Eb and “thus the extended tonal instability of the

introduction is resolved here” (Haimo 53). Because of the varied time signatures,

the analysis by Kielian-Gilbert counts the number of quarters notes each phrase

includes. This beginning phrase is 15.5 q’s.

It is then followed by a 16 q – note phrase, Theme 1A. Within this phrase,

there is not only imitation, but also something very different in the pitch collection.

A Db occurs in the first bassoon and trombone parts. It is not simply an

elaborative tone. An elaborative tone is what we mostly commonly call neighbor

and passing tones. Thus, is must become part of the referential pitch collection

and call it an eight-note set or simply Eb/Ab.

From box 8 to box 10, Theme 1 transitions through different relative pitch
collections into the second theme at box 10. These are two different phrases, the

first 12 q – notes and the second 17.5 q – notes. The second trumpet has the

theme but is slightly altered from the beginning with a major third decent rather

than a minor third. The second trombone creates a motor for this section with

almost continuous eight-notes. The first 12 q – note phrase can be broken up into

6+6. The relative pitch collection is Db and this is an example where though it is

the collection of Db, Gb is fairly good candidate for the “tonic” in this section. The

last six q – notes are part of two collections, E and A, and create an eight-note

collection with D and D#. The Haimo analysis believes that this is a tonicless

passage because the changes occur so rapidly

At 9, the second trumpet keeps plugging away, but this section reminds

me of Theme 1A. The first trumpet and flute echo the second trumpet (but in the

original pitch construction of the motive). Beginning with the measure before 9,

the referential pitch collection become D. Also, this phrasing is a place where I do

not completely agree with Kielian-Gilbert. Instead of 17.5 q – notes, I look at this

as 12.5 + 5 because the two measures before 10 are different than those

preceding them with the referential pitch collection become Bb, still with D as the

tonic. They also foreshadow what is about to happen at 10 with the D in the

trombone part.

At box 10, we finally hear Theme 2. The primary line rests in the trumpet 1

part. The way Stravinsky has laid out the bar lines, we really lose track of what is

on and off the beats. To me, it feels like the notes change on the beat, but

looking at the score, they obviously do not. The relative pitch collection is G, but
D is the real tonic of the passage. There are 14 q – notes broken into 12+2. The

2 measures lead into box 11 and theme 2A, and an obscured return of the Eb

pitch collection.

Theme 2A is a 10 q – note phrase and the trumpet 2 once again has an

altered melody, similar to box 8. The F in the bass at box 11 is the reason we feel

the return to Eb is obscured. Leading up to this moment, we have seen D, Bb,

and G pitch collections but all with D as the tonic. D resolves into Eb at 11, but

Stravinsky tries to mask it.

Beginning one beat before 12, theme 2 returns this time in a Db collection

with Ab as the tonic and C pedal in the 2nd bassoon part. Haimo point this out as

referential pitch and makes note that the Ab resolution to G at 13 is the same

happening at the beginning when A resolved to Bb. The flute, clarinet, and

trombone I have the primary line and there is once again 12 q – notes in the

phrase. Box 13 begins a transition into the development using the C as a relative

pitch collection. Stravinsky tends to keep instruments together and use them for

their pure tones, rather than creating new combinations. This can be seen from

13 to 14 where the flute and clarinet stay together; the bassoons have a little

statement together as well as the trumpets. The lines are fit together in one way

or another, but he uses the pure tones and colors of the instruments to get the

effect he wants.

Box 14 begins the development section of the piece. After the Eb, Db, and

C collections from 11-14, we once again reach D. 14 and 15 consist of many

different chromatic lines that change so often that there really is not a referential
pitch collection. D is not necessarily the tonic in the section, but “D is in fact the

anchor on and around which all of the melodic lines turn” (Haimo 53). The

phrases at 14 and 15 are 12.5+5+14.

3beats before box 16, we see what seems like a return of Theme 2 in the

clarinet, and later with the trumpet. This continues to be centered around D and

a contrary moving scales in the bassoons and trumpets lead into box 17.

Five measures after 17, Eb makes once again an obscured return. Theme

2A is played in the trumpet 2. The bass note in the trombone 2 part is an F, very

similar to box 11. This phrase is 10.5 q – notes. Box 18, Theme 2 returns, but on

E in the clarinet, followed by the bassoon. Immediately after this statement,

trombone 1 plays it again now on Eb. Bassoon acts as the motor during this

section and there is never the actual Eb collection fully used. These two phrases

are broken up into 10+12 q – notes.

The piece begins to get back to the first theme at 19. Box 19 is a

transitional section using the tail of the first theme. This section is played in the

bassoon 1 part, followed by the trumpet 2. It begins with C as the referential pitch

and then changes to Ab. Box 20 leads into the theme at 21 with these

descending chromatic lines in the flute, clarinet, and second trumpet. Stravinsky

once again obscures the bar lines with his rhythmic displacement of the pulse.

This section is 15 q – notes.

The first theme truly returns at box 21. The primary line begins in trumpet

1 part on Eb. Flute interrupts with the line in the Db. Trumpet 2 interrupts the flute

with the line in C and Trombone come in 6 notes later on Bb. From 21-23 is 31 q
– notes. 23 used the same Eb and Ab eight-note collection from box 7 and is the

return of the theme 1A. Since the development, this is the section that has most

replicated a previous section in the piece and in doing so, makes this ending very

stable.

Conclusions

This movement, though very different from a classical sonata-allegro form,

has a very formal structure. The piece is mirrored. The number of quarter notes

uses in each section is very close to symmetrical. It begins with an introduction,

Th1, Th1A, Th1Trans., Th2, Th2A, Th2, trans., Development, trans. with Th2,

Th2A, Th2, Trans. Th1, Th1 and codetta which is Th1A. The number of quarter

notes used in each section is also very close to symmetrical. He does not break

from the symmetrical form until the very end, to surprise us.

This movement’s harmonic implications have roots in the way harmony

was used in the past. Instead of going back and forth between tonic, Eb, and

dominant, Bb, this piece used D as the “dominant.” It begins with this upbeat on

D in the intro, establishes Eb as the tonic. The second theme is in D and then

moves up to Eb for an obscured return, then back D for the development. After

the development, we have another obscured return of Eb and instead of

journeying down to D, which would be symmetrical with the earlier section, it

climbs up to E natural and then back down to Eb.

Stravinsky had a true understanding of the past and we can see it within

this movement. As in tonal music, the dominant was considered quite unstable.

In this piece D is a tonic in many places, but the underlying referential pitch
collections change quickly underneath the D and create instability. This can be

seen easily from box 8 to box 11. Many times he uses repeated motives to move

through different “key” areas as classical composers used quite often. The

sonata-allegro form is very confining and Stravinsky found a way to manipulate

the material in such a way to bring the past and present together.
 Works Cited

Cross, Jonathan. 2003. The Cambridge companion to Stravinsky. Cambridge

Haimo, Ethan, and Paul Johnson. 1987. Stravinsky retrospectives. Lincoln:

Kielian-Gilbert, Marianne. "Stravinsky's Contrasts: Contradiction and

Messing, Scott. 1988. Neoclassicism in music: from the genesis of the concept
through the Schoenberg/Stravinsky polemic. Studies in musicology, no. 101. Ann
Arbor, Mich: UMI Research Press.

Stravinsky, Igor, and Eric Walter White. 1975. Igor Stravinsky: an autobiography.
London: Calder & Boyars.

Watkins, Glenn. 1988. Soundings: music in the twentieth century. New York:
Schirmer Books.

White, Eric Walter. 1984. Stravinsky, the composer and his works. Berkeley:
University of California Press.