Repetition and the Façade of Discontinuity In

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

School of Music

ACTIVE STASIS: REPETITION AND THE FAÇADE OF DISCONTINUITY IN

STRAVINSKY’S HISTOIRE DU SOLDAT (1918)

A Thesis in

Music Theory

Richard Desinord

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

May 2016

The thesis of Richard Desinord was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Maureen A. Carr Distinguished Professor of Music Thesis Advisor

Eric J. McKee Professor of Music

Marica A. Tacconi Professor of Music Graduate Officer and Associate Director of the School of Music

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

ii ABSTRACT

Igor Stravinsky’s (1882-1971) early works are often depicted as repetitive and regressive with regard to its thematic development and formal structure. His penchant for mosaic-like constructs that rely on the recurrence of unchanged blocks of sound and their subsequent juxtapositions defined his practice and enabled Stravinsky to seek out new ways of composing. In the music of other composers repetition was largely reliant upon differences in successive appearances that provided a sense of growth and direction from beginning to end. Stravinsky instead often depended on the recurrence of unchanged fragments and their interactions with other repetitive patterns across larger spans of his works.

This thesis focuses on the use of repetition as an agent of progress in order to dispel lingering myths of the discontinuous elements in Stravinsky’s Histoire du soldat

(1918). Following the work of Peter van den Toorn and Gretchen Horlacher, I examine repetition and block form as both static entities and embryonic figures, and the roles they play in musical development. Through my analysis and my introduction of a new theory of shifting blocks, I ultimately offer an alternate reading of his compositional process, arguing that Stravinsky’s use of repetition contributes to narrative, development and form.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Musical Examples and Figures ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 1: Affects and Effects of Repetition ...... 7

Chapter 2: Repetition as an Agent of Continuity ...... 12

Chapter 3: Connections to the Story and Other Stravinsky Works ...... 36

Conclusion ...... 46

Selected Bibliography ...... 49

iv List of Musical Examples & Figures

Example 1.1: Stravinsky, “Airs by a Stream,” Histoire. Analysis of repetitions and motivic gestures...... 16-18

Example 1.2: Stravinsky, “Three Pieces,” mvt. 1, mm. 1-13 ...... 24

Example 1.3 “Airs,” mm. 30-35 ...... 27

Example 1.4: Beethoven, Op. 18, No. 2, mvt. 1, mm. 21-35 ...... 30

Example 1.5: “Airs” and Beethoven: op. 18, no. 2 thematic comparison...... 31

Example 1.6: “Airs,” opening, mm. 1-11 ...... 32

Example 1.7: “Airs,” closing, mm. 88-107 ...... 33

Example 1.8: Stravinsky, “Lento,” Les cinq doigts (1921) ...... 39

Example 1.9, “Grand Chorale,” Histoire mm. 18-20 ...... 41

Example 1.10, Symphonies of Wind Instruments, mm. 11-12 ...... 44

Figure 1.1: Blocks of “Airs” (transcribed to concert pitch) ...... 15 Figure 1.2: Horlacher’s list of ordered succession in multiple iterations ...... 20

Figure 1.3. “Static shift” through the first movement of Three Pieces between the first and second violin parts ...... 26

Figure 1.4: “Static shift” in “Airs” between the 16th notes of the violin and and bass ostinato ...... 33

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my first college theory professors during my undergraduate years at Howard University: Dr. Anthony Randolph, Dr. Chinyerem Ohia, and Dr. Paul Schultz for exposing me to advanced music theory scholarship. A huge thank you is in store for my advisor, Dr. Maureen Carr. Her openness and boundless knowledge on all things Stravinsky enabled me to expand my research beyond the original scope. Thank you to Dr. Eric McKee for helping me think outside of the music theory box and for exposing me to different styles of writing. Also, a thank you is in order to Dr. Charles Youmans for his critiques on my initial ideas that led to the conception of this thesis. Thank you to the all of the Penn State music theory and musicology professors for creating an atmosphere that made me want to be better from the moment I arrived at the School of Music. Bach had Mendelssohn, Mahler had

Bernstein, and I had my professors. While I wouldn’t dare compare my abilities to the classical music giants, I use the comparison because of how my professors were able to pluck me from obscurity and become my champions. Thank you to the Penn State

Institute for the Arts and Humanities for selecting me as one of their Spring 2015 graduate student residents. The residency and funding provided me an invaluable opportunity to get a head start on my thesis.

I reserve my deepest gratitude for my mother and father. Their encouragement and countless sacrifices throughout my childhood set the stage for my all of my success.

vi INTRODUCTION

Many of Stravinsky’s works are characterized by the use of repetitive patterns as part of their motivic network. His approach to motivic repetition differed from his musical forbearers, peers, and successors, and was an integral part of Stravinsky’s concept of musical development. In the music of other composers motivic repetition was largely contingent upon rhythmic, melodic, or harmonic variances in successive appearances. Such variances provide a sense of growth and development, and a dynamic trajectory from beginning to end. Contrarily, much of Stravinsky’s music often relied on the recurrence of unchanged fragments and their simultaneous interactions with other repetitive patterns across larger spans of his works.1

At first glance Stravinsky’s motivic reiterations might exude an air of passivity, containing no significant shifts in momentum that would suggest development of the repeated figures. Pierre Boulez criticizes this apparent immobility in a discussion of

Stravinsky’s compositional language, saying that Stravinsky’s compositional style “has a less marked feeling of development. . . . This may be considered a weakness—and so it

1 Peter C. van den Toorn and John McGuiness offer an insightful analysis into the use of fixed material where they consider the influence of the relatively unchanged opening section of Stravinsky’s Symphonies of Wind Instruments (1920) as a medium to connect larger areas of the piece, see Peter C. van den Toorn and John McGuiness, Stravinsky and the Russian Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 225-235. This type of repetition as it relates to Stravinsky’s sketches are examined through Three Pieces for String Quartet, Three Easy Pieces, and Pribaoutki (all from 1914) in Maureen Carr, After the Rite (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 44-63.

1 is.”2 Boulez’s categorization of Stravinsky’s specious “failure” to display similar levels of organization and coherent dynamic trajectory echoes the sentiments of the composer’s detractors that make claims of his music’s torpor.3

However, closer examination often exposes a greater sense of continuity and interconnection among the seemingly fragile systems of multiple levels of repetitive patterns. Where traditional theoretical applications have failed, more recent methods of analysis have articulated a network of interrelated patterns and shapes that reveal a unifying force of structural intent within Stravinsky’s oeuvre. Most notable are approaches centered on the repetitive nature of the material within segments of the music, or, “blocks.” Pieter C.van den Toorn defines “block structure” as “a framework [in which] two or more blocks of relatively heterogeneous content are repeatedly, and often abruptly juxtaposed.”4

My exploration into this compositional technique focuses on the composer’s

Histoire du soldat. While much has been written about Stravinsky’s use of repetition and block form, the role of block form in Histoire has seldom been explored, and to the extent that this feature has been noted, it has not been investigated over larger areas of the piece

2 Pierre Boulez, “Stravinsky Remains,” in Stocktackings from an Apprenticeship, trans. Stephen Walsh (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 57. 3 Theodore Adorno, Philosophy of Modern Music (New York: The Seabury Press, 1973), 178-179. Adorno likens Stravinsky’s music to schizophrenia and catatonia, and allegorizes his repetitions as Sisyphean endeavors. 4 Pieter C. van den Toorn, Stravinsky and The Rite of Spring (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987), 97.

2 as a whole.5 Through allusion and the interspersing of motives from other movements within the work, Stravinsky is able to envelop the ostensibly disconnected elements of the composition into a larger consciousness of overall development. Through shifting juxtapositions of material, a repeated motive can assume multiple functions without the constraint of replacing or diminishing its original conception. Although he eschews traditional techniques of harmonic and thematic development laid bare by his musical antecedents, Stravinsky’s formal structures exhibit an ambiguous facility with regard to form in that his repetitions contribute to larger, structural growth. In her theory of

“ordered succession,” Gretchen Horlacher expands on the nature of Stravinsky’s repetitions where she advances the concept of block form, viewing motives and thematic recurrences “both as a fixed whole and as an emerging shape.”6 Through the use of block form and repetition in Histoire du soldat (1918), Stravinsky is able to build cohesion between sections of the composition.

This paper will also explore Histoire’s connections to other works, both by

Stravinsky and other composers, and the influence these pieces may have had on the compositional process during its completion. Of particular importance is the link

5 Carr, After the Rite, 83-86. Maureen Carr’s block analysis of “anticipatory gestures” found in the “Devil’s Dance” of Histoire is used to reference similarities with the block form structure of a section in Renard; Marianne Kielian-Gilbert also traces the bordering techniques through restatements of motives at the beginning and end of the “The Soldier’s March” of Histoire in “The Rhythms of Form: Correspondence and Analogy in Stravinsky’s Designs,” Music Theory Spectrum 9 (1987): 42-66. David Smyth and Don Traut, “Stravinsky's Sketches for the Great Chorale,”Intégral 25 (2011): 89-120. The authors also explore faint connections to block form through sketch studies of the larger chorale. 6 Gretchen Horlacher, Building Blocks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 27.

3 between a melodic motive in the first movement of Three Pieces for String Quartet

(1914) and several motives in Histoire. Making note of the dates of composition, it is interesting that in 1918 (the conclusion of World War I), Stravinsky returned to the melodic tetrachordal gesture of Three Pieces, composed in 1914 (the start of World War

I). With The Rite of Spring (1913) and several other compositions completed in the decade following it, Stravinsky’s wartime compositions are often characterized as a turn to neoclassicism, or, in some cases, a conversion to the primitive.7 Adorno’s classification of this collection of works as a phase of “infantilism” beleaguers the notion of Stravinsky’s oeuvre around the first war as non-developmental, saying that he “was always prone to exploit children’s songs as messengers of the primeval to the individual.”8 Adorno references music by Beethoven and other earlier styles as evolvement while stating that more literal forms of repetition impede any perception of progress. His description of an implied regression to juvenile topoi within Stravinsky’s works completed during the First World War is an apt portrayal considering that the nature of literal repetition can often thwart any attempts of meaningful progression.

However, to view Stravinsky’s repetitions as purely non-developmental would overlook a glaring contradiction in that repetition has always facilitated development, and that interconnection in a given piece of music has often been largely contingent upon reappearances of motives and harmonic progressions. What would Baroque music be without the sequencing of motives, or the absence of a thematic return in the Classical sonata form?

7 Glenn Watkins, Pyramids at the Louvre, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1994), 84-89. 8 Adorno, Philosophy of Modern Music, 162.

In Stravinsky’s case, his music facilitates a sense of fluidity and mutability; although the repeated figures remain fixed in their own right, they eventually become an agent of continuity through superimposition, juxtaposition, and the shifting of differing strata. This “active stasis” engenders greater coherence through sections of his works, ultimately granting the composer more alternatives to bridge sections that may otherwise present themselves to be inert. Pierre Boulez references methods of apposition and motivic overlay in musical writing as the antithesis of the compositional process, but misses the point that these networks possess an interrelation entrenched in a larger, overarching narrative of structural cohesion.9 Boulez may have had a change of heart, considering his remarks in a series of lectures on the music of Stravinsky in the early

1980s. Edward Campbell notes that “[a]t the level of form, Stravinsky’s pieces begin to resemble Stravinsky’s sectional forms, and in lectures from 1983 to 1985, he commends the originality of Stravinsky’s discourse, which bases musical form on the permutation and return of recognizable sections.”10 He goes on to quote Boulez’s statements from

Leçons de musique where he says “Stravinsky’s conception of melodic development is based on a psalmody and litany where deviation is minute in relation to the original model, but where the intervening extensions, contractions, displacement of accents … finds its profound force in accumulation.”11 This thesis will show how stasis and repetition in Histoire enables development. Through a series of transformations of static

9 Boulez, “Proposals,” in Stocktakings, 49. 10 Edward Campbell, Boulez, Music, and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 206. 11 Ibid., 206. The quotation of Boulez is from the author’s translation.

5 fields within the composition, the discontinuous ultimately manifests into an ally of the continuous.12

Chapter one discusses the role of repetitions and the outcomes of perception in its use. The second chapter surveys the literature and methodologies used to analyze repetitions and block form in Stravinsky’s works. I will isolate specific instances where those theories reveal a deeper level of motivic organization within Histoire. I introduce two possible sources that may have contributed to the blocks in the second section (“Airs by a Stream”) of Histoire. My analysis demonstrates how Stravinsky uses repetition and ordered succession as a vehicle of development. In the final chapter I will show smaller levels of repetition, rotation, and their connections to the story and other works composed by Stravinsky that display similar repetitions of motives that he either forecasts or recalls in Histoire.

12 Christopher Hasty, “On the Problem of Succession and Continuity in Twentieth- Century Music,” Music Theory Spectrum 8 (1986): 58; Horlacher, Building Blocks, 25.

6 CHAPTER 1: AFFECTS AND EFFECTS OF REPETITION

“[S]omething has to occur again for it to occur at all.”13

The contribution of repetition to musical development, and its redeeming or adverse qualities, has been debated amongst many musicologists and theorists. The subject encounters added complexity when considering the changing styles and periods in music history, and the role in which repetition can exist in each. Yet, regardless of its chronological manifestations in the musical continuum, the properties of repetition ultimately rest within its ability to effect change in the environment in which it exists.

The use of repetition as a conduit of action is another view that has received some added attention as it relates to development. Daphne Leong and David Korevaar discuss the propagating comportments of repetition as “musical motion,” addressing this characteristic as a “generic conceptual blend of physical motion and musical structure,” arguing that “motion occurs when some parameter is held constant while others change, resulting from the action of some agent.”14 Stravinsky’s musical reiterations often personify this phenomenon as many of his works use repetition as a mirror by which other aspects of a piece can interact.

13 Catherine Pickstock, Repetition and Identity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 44. Pickstock is paraphrasing a passage from Hegel’s Philosophy of History. 14 Daphne Leong and David Korevaar, “Repetition as Musical Motion in Ravel’s Piano Writing,” in Unmasking Ravel, ed. Peter Kaminsky (Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press, 2011), 114.

7 At times these thematic recurrences are veiled, operating on a sublevel of a composition beyond mere prolongation and augmentation. In his article on motivic parallelisms, Charles Burkhart uses Schenkerian theory to point out what Schenker describes as “hidden repetitions.” Burkhart’s analyses trace reiterations of motives as they occur on multiple levels of organization from the foreground to the background. In order to establish a repetition through multiple structural levels as motivic parallelism,

Burkhart states that a motive must have at least two or more statements in order to be established as a musical corresponding entity. As the opening quote confirms, repetition and its importance are established through multiple soundings of the initial appearance.

Referring to the original and its repetitions, the author signifies their soundings as

“pattern” and “copy,” respectively, and goes on to elucidate the distinctions between multilevel parallelisms and surface transformations.15

Although my discussion of repetition is limited to surface level interactions, the concept of a theme (or thematic fragment) being manipulated across a composition through repetition has special relevance to the ensuing discussion. To deem a repetition as a copy is to deny the repetition an identity; its existence is none other than a consequence of something that transpired. However, this line of reasoning ignores the distinctiveness of the repetition in and of itself and relegates it to the status of an uninspired imitation of an original unit. This critique of pattern and copy is not to discredit Burkhart’s insights into repetition through parallelism; rather, it serves to gain a

15 Charles Burkhart, “Schenker’s Motivic Parallelisms,” Journal of Music Theory 22, (1978): 154-155.

8 deeper understanding of the concept of a repetition. What does it mean for a melodic or harmonic duplication to exist as a recurrence of something while maintaining an individuated element within its sounding?

Because the established perception of development relies on harmonic expansion and melodic variation, unaltered motivic reiterations present a problem for listeners expecting traditional variants such as registral shift, key or modal change, dynamic contrast, and so on. The theoretical nature of musical development requires that an idea be subject to expansion while preserving the identity of the original idea. Repetition in tonal music is goal oriented; the ear expects a progression to eventually reach a stopping point. However, this effect can only be achieved if the reiterations of certain motives undergo some degree of transformation either at the foreground, middleground, or background level. The essence of tonality is the gravitational pull towards a tonic, an attraction that is heightened through sequencing or imitation, ultimately concluding with the cadential power of a structural dominant to its tonic.

To an extent, literal repetition can have the same effect. A repeat of the opening theme of the A section in a piece using a binary or ternary format will seem innocuous and when heard, it can arguably go largely unnoticed. Is this because we have been prepared to hear the section again through a cultural inundation of art music, or is it due to the size and scope of having a large area of the piece, containing various internal manipulations, returning after listeners have retained a small portion of a musical statement? I would suggest that the repetitions in this case provide a balance, not only in the sense of form, but also in an aural domain.

On the other hand, what happens when these repetitions are shorter in duration, covering areas of the piece that are as small as a theme or motive? These continuous literal reiterations can appear to be directionless, effectively obscuring the sense of expectation. There is no sense of beginning or arrival when a repeated fragment occurs over and over while remaining entirely unchanged. Although it becomes predictable over each sounding, literal repetitions, especially those of shorter duration that contain entire statements of a theme may become disorienting and uncomfortable. As we listen to music, we want to be surprised and to have our sense of expectation thwarted—to a certain degree. We want to encounter something that sets a piece of music apart from others, but should the piece completely alienate our anticipation of an arrival, it ultimately creates an unhinged aural space where the traditional aspects of repetition that award our senses no longer exist.

Exact replication is acutely problematic in this sense because the idea presumably has no avenue to develop through external or internal manipulation, thus lending itself to the feeling of stagnation. Literal repetition presents itself as static because it is static. The part is restated not as a distant echo or allusion, but as an exact restatement of something that was previously sounded. Yet this view only acknowledges repetition as an unconnected entity, and it is precisely this reasoning that leads to an acuity of inaction.

Lisa Margulis notes that “repetition tends to reify a passage,” and that its use serves “to

10 set it apart from the surrounding context as a thing to be mused on, abstractly considered, and conceptualized as a unit.”16

Viewed in a contextual framework these figures progress to preserve permanency and growth. Moreover, as a rhetorical entity, motivic repetition operates as a generator of continuity through its various soundings. Its motivic identity is manifested only through recurrence, and its role in a work’s development only comes through its interactions with other aspects of the piece. The question of what definitively constitutes a “block” or a repetition in Histoire must be addressed as we consider Stravinsky’s concept of development.

16 Lisa Margulis, On Repeat (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 43.

11 CHAPTER 2: REPETITION AS AN AGENT OF CONTINUITY

Following The Rite of Spring, Stravinsky became increasingly fascinated with the idea of literal repetition as the driving force in his music. Although always a feature of his compositional style, these repetitions were no longer subject to layering across non- fixed melodies and harmonies, and the composer’s technique changed considerably, although it retained his spirit through this adjustment. Stravinsky was caught between two worlds: the traditions of his mentor Rimsky-Korsakov and others who embraced a tonal enterprise containing rules that governed the compositional practice, and the world of his peers who thrived in a time where these conventions became increasingly relaxed as composers sought alternative ways of expanding (or abandoning) tonality.

In this chapter, I examine the approaches to repetition and block form and offer my interpretation of these systems within the second section, “Airs by a Stream,” of

Histoire. I also posit a source for the blocks, illustrate their connection to Histoire, and show how they contribute to a network of shifts that ultimately craft an overall realization of traditional form and development.

Completed in the fall of 1918, Histoire du soldat was the last of Stravinsky’s compositions to be completed during World War I, a period that saw the completion of

Five Easy Pieces (1916-17) and Renard (1916), two works that employ block form or repetition. Stravinsky’s technique and realization of repetition as a developmental channel was in full force by the time he began work on Histoire, yet he would not rely on

12 this technique alone in his compositional process. Though the concept of block form can indeed be open to multiple interpretations, the general premise of the repetitive nature of patterns and blocks within Stravinsky’s works is that they contribute to the structural integrity of his forms. The block structure used in Histoire is akin to the configurations of this technique used in both Stravinsky’s earlier and later works, in that he frequently used repetition as a conduit for motivic development.

Continuity in “Airs” is generated by the repetition of motives that participate in block structure. Edward Cone delves into Stravinsky’s repetitions when he discusses the sensitivity of the gaps between repetitions, or “sudden breaks,” and argues that these

“interruptions” may correspond to stage movements in his theatre productions, noting their effects can still be felt even during their absence.17 His method was one of the earliest attempts to assess the deficiencies in using traditional analytical tools to decipher formal aspects of Stravinsky’s structures in order to explain the outwardly abrupt associations. Maureen Carr’s study of block form resembles this approach as her analysis describes the evolution of motives from Stravinsky’s sketches and shows how motives were replicated in different compositions.18

17 Edward T. Cone, “Stravinsky: The Progress of a Method”, Perspectives of New Music 1, (1962): 18-19. While commenting on Histoire’s genesis, Stravinsky states that the idea of having the musicians perform on stage with the actor and narrator had the added benefit of seeing the musician’s gestures in Igor Stravinsky, An Autobiography (New York: W.W. Norton, 1962, reissued 1998), 72. This conflicts with another of his retellings regarding the initial inspiration for the music of Histoire, and will be further discussed in chapter three. 18 Carr, After the Rite, 44-47, 51-63

13 In accordance with the work of Pieter van der Toorn and others, my definition of block form in Histoire relates to passages in which Stravinsky uproots sections of the composition and places the unaltered fragments alongside other motives in the composition. In his description of repetitions found in The Rite of Spring, van den Toorn categorizes the constructs as one of two forms: Type I and Type II. Repetitions of a Type

I classification function through fluctuating meter, with contrasting blocks continuously exchanging sonorities. The blocks can be comprised of one or more measures and although the blocks are offered in “rapid juxtaposition,” growth is only achievable

“between blocks.”19 Type II repetitions are different primarily since they occupy spaces within a fixed metrical environment and are assembled through the superimposition of multiple blocks. Both categorizations are primarily rhythmic; any awareness of development in Type I is a result of “lengthening, shortening, or shuffling of blocks,” whereas growth in Type II depends on “vertical or harmonic shifts in alignment.”20

The repetitions and blocks in Histoire follow this logic, as they are in part dependent upon the interactions between soundings of each fragment. However, these blocks are not always found in their full form and often contain small fragments of the total motive. The block analysis in Musical Example 1.1 (along with the preceding Figure

1.1 that defines the motives) shows the repetitions and various motives throughout the

“Airs” of Histoire. Due to the frequently changing time signatures throughout the section, a Type I label would be most fitting. Yet, when surveying the vertical

19 Pieter C. van den Toorn, Stravinsky and The Rite of Spring (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987), 99. 20 Ibid., 99-100.

14 alignments of different repetitions, the various iterations of superimposit ions would lead C1 one to classify this section as a Type II block form. The concurrent interaction of formal 1 , , ° ≥ 2 ™ 3 2 ∑ Œ ‰ Œ Œ ‰ Vl. &4 8 œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ designationsœ œ œ furthersœ œ œ œ the œcomplexity œœ œ œ œ of Stravinsky’s œ œ œ œ œ attention to structure and cohesion, œ. œ . œ œ. œ . œ œ. œ . œ œ. œ. œ œ. œ .œ œ. œ. œ œ œ œ. œ œ™ œ. œ . œœ. C2œ . œ œ. œ ...... . . . . . . . . . . . p spiccato mf p o o o o o o o o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ pizz.œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ andœ necessitatesœ œ œ œ supplementaryœ œ œ œ identifyingœ œ œ œ characteristicsœ œ to distinguish interactions ? 2 3 2 C.B. 4 8 4 ¢ mf p [sempre] C3 amongst repetitive organizations. D 2 3 4 12 . >. ° œ œ. .. œ œ . ∑ ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 ‰ œœJ3 œ œ2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Cl. & 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 Figure 1.1: Blocks of “Airs” (transcribed to concert pitch) p > œ. ? 5 Histoire 2 du soldat 5 © 1987 &2 1992 Chester3 œ œ œ. 2 Music Limited, 5 14-215 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Bsn. ∑ ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 4 Œ ‰ J 8 4 œ œ ∑ 8 ∑ 4 ¢ Kingdom, worldwide rights exceptp the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright ≥ © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and , , ten. ten. ≤ , , , , > . ° j œ≥ œ œ. œ ‰ 5 Schott2 Music GmbHj 5 ≈& Co.≈ 2KG, Mainz,‰ 3 ‰ Germany.2 œ Reproducedœ 5 œ ™ œ 2 with the kind permission of the publisher. V ln. & œ œ œ j 8 œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ 4#œ œ 8 œ œœ œ 4 8 œ4 œ 8 œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ™ œ œ œ œ. œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ . œ . . . . . œ œ > > > . . . . . . > > poco sf > poco sf o o o o o o o o o o o o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ ? œ œ œ 5 œ œ 2 œ œ 5 œ œ 2 œ 3 2 œ œ 5 œ œ2 Cb. 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 ¢ A1 C1 25 5 . > > > . ° #œ œ œ #œœœ œ œ #œœ. œ œ œ ?2 ∑ 3 ∑ 3 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ 5Œ 2 ∑ 5 3 Bsn. 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 ¢ A2 C2 p œ. . . œ. œ. . œ. - > > > ° œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ >> 2 œ œ 3 3 œ œ #œœ œ œœ œœ#œœ 2 œ œ 5 ‰ 2 ‰ 5 ‰ 3 Vln. &4 œ œ 8 œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ 4 œ œ 8 œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ 4 -œ œ nœ. œ œ œœ.œœœ. #œ œœ œ œœ. #œœ œ œnœ. œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . B1 p subito mf p o o o o o o o C3 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 2 3 3 2 5 Œ 2 Œ ‰ J ‰ 5 ∑ 3 Cb. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 B2 D 34 6 j > . Solo bœœ . > œbœ œ œ œbœ œ œ œXœ œ ° œ œ. . . œ ˙ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 Ó œ œ œœ œ 5 œ J 3 2 ∑ J5 2 Cl. &4 8 4 4 8 4 p poco sf sub. p sim. #œ œœ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ ?3 Œ Œ 5 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 Bsn. 4 8 4 4 8 4 ¢ ≤ ≥ ≤ ≤ ≤ ° 3 5 3 #œ 2 #œ 5 #œ #œ 2 Vln. &4 œ ≈ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œœ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ nœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ œ œnœ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ œ . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. > œ œ œ p poco più forte poco più forte sub. ? 3 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 Cb. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4

15 Example 1.1: Stravinsky, “Airs by a Stream,” Histoire. Analysis of repetitions and motivic gestures.

© 1987 & 1992 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany. Reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher.

A 1 , , ° 2 ™ 3 ≥ 2 Vl. 4 ∑ Œ ‰ Œ Œ 8 ‰ 4 & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ œ œ. œ œ™ œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. p spiccato mf p œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œo pizz.œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ C.B. ¢ 4 8 4 mf p [sempre]

2 3 4 12 . . >. ° 5 2 5 2 œ œ œ. . œ 3 œ œ œ. 2 5 2 Cl. & ∑ ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 4 ‰ œJ 8 4 ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 4 (in A) p >. ? ∑ ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Œ ‰ œ 3 œ œ œ. 2 œ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Bsn. ¢ 8 4 8 4 J 8 4 œ 8 4 p ≥ ° , , ten. ten. ≤ , , , , ≥ >. œ. ‰ 5 j 2 j 5 ≈ ≈ 2 ‰ 3 ‰ 2 œ œ 5 œ 2 Vln. & œ œ œ j 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4#œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ 4 8 œ 4 œ 8 œ™ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ. œ œ. œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ > . œ > > . œ. œ. . œ. . > >. . . . œ œ poco sf > poco sf o o o o o o o o o o o o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ 2 œ œ 3 œ 2 œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ 2 Cb. ¢ 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4

25 5 . > > > . ° #œ œ #œœ œ #œ . œ œ ? 2 ∑ 3 ∑ 3 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ 5 Œ œ 2 œ œ ∑ 5 œ œ 3 Bsn. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 p

...... - > ° 2 œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ 3#œ œ #œ #œ œ>œ œ#>œ 2#œ >>œ 5 2 5 3 Vln. 4 œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ 4 œ œœ œ œ œ œœ 4 œ 8 ‰ 4 ‰ 8 ‰ 4 & œ œ œ nœ œ œ œœ#œ œœ#œ nœ œ #œ œ œ œ œ - . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. . œ œ. œ. œ. . œ œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. o o o o o p subioto mf o p œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 2 œ œ 3 œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ 5 œ œ Œ 2 Œ ‰ J œ œ ‰ 5 ∑ 3 Cb. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4

B 6 34 Solo j . > bœ œbœ œ œ œ. ° œ . . bœ œ ˙ œ œ >œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 Ó œ œ œ œ. œ œ 5 œ œ J 3 2 ∑ J 5 2 Cl. &4 8 4 4 8 4 p poco sf sub. p sim. #œ œ œ #œ œ œ ? 3 œ œ Œ Œ œ œ 5 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 Bsn. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4

≥ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ° 3 5 3 #œ 2 #œ 5 #œ #œ 2 Vln. &4 œ ≈ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ nœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ œ œnœ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ œ . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. > œ œ œ p poco più forte poco più forte sub. ? 3 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 Cb. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4

16 Example2 1.1 continued

> . 7 > >r 8 r bœ r > œ œ œ r 42 œj bœ bœ r œ œ œ bœ > > > > r bœ r œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ° œœ œ œ œ œœœ œ œ œ™ >™ œ œ œ œ œbœ œœ œ œ œ œ 2 3 2 œ3 œ J 2 J œ J 3 2 3 2 5 2 Cl. ¢&4 8 4 8 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 sempre simile ° 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 5 2 A Tpt. &4 ∑ 8 ∑ 4 ∑ 8 ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 4 ∑ 4 ∑ 4 ‰ 8 j‰ 4 ¢ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ p

pizz. m.g. ° œ arco 2 3 œ#œ 2 œ œ#œ3 œ 2 œ #œ œ 3 2 œ #œœ 3 œ #œ œ 2 j Œ 5 ‰ 2 Vln. ¢&4 œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ 4 œ œ8 œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ 4 œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ 8 4 nœ œ œ œ nœ œ œ nœœ œnœ œ œ œnœœ œnœ œ œ œnœ œ œnœ œ nœ œ œ nœ œ J #œ. œ œ œ. sf >

9 10 °53 poco pesante , 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ 7 ∑ 3 ∑ 5 Cl. &4 8 8 4 8 œ œ œ 4 8 -œ -œ - -œ - - -œ f poco pesante- œ- œ- œ- œ- œ œ- œ-, ? 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ 7 ∑ 3 ∑ 5 Bsn. ¢ 4 8 8 4 8 4 8 mp

[poco pesant-e] , ° 2 3 5 2 7 œ- œ- œ- œ- œ œ- œ- 3 5 A Tpt. &4 ∑ ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 8 ∑ ∑ ∑ 4 ∑ 8 ∑ 4 ∑ 8 mp

[poco pesante] , ? 2 3 5 2 7 #œ -œ 3 5 Tbn. 4 ∑ ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 8 ∑ ∑ ∑ 4 ∑ 8 œ œ œ œ ∑ 4 ∑ 8 ¢ -œ - - - mp ≥ ° ten. ten. 2 3 œœ 5 2 7 ∑ œ#œ œ œ œ œ 3 œ #œ 5 Vln. &4 œ œ 8 œœ œ 8 j œ j œ j 4 8 œ œ 4 œ œ 8 #œ #œ œ œ #œ œ . . œ œ#œ #œ œ œ #œ œ#œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ nœ œ . œ. œ œ œ œ . œ. œ œ œ . œ. œ. . . œ. œ >œ œ œ œ . . œ. œ >œ œ œ œ > > > > > mf arco > > ? 2 œ™ œ ˙ œ œ™ 3 œ œ 5 œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ™ 7 ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 5 Cb. ¢ 4 J J 8 J 8 J J J 4 J 8 4 8 p poco sf poco sf sempre simile

11 bœ œ . œ œ r œ œ. r œ °64 œ œ œbœ œ œœbœ œ œ œ œ œ œœ 5 ∑ ∑ ∑ 7 ∑ 3 ∑ ∑ Œ Cl. ¢&8 8 4 p ≥ molto ≥. ≥ ...... > ≈ > j j r j j r j j r j j r ° j ≈œ™ nœ œn œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ #œ œ #œ œ œ 7 nœ œ œ≈#œ 3 œ œnœ œœ#œ œ œ œœ œœ#œ œ œ œnœ œ œ#œ œ œ œnœ œ œ #œ œ Vln. ¢&8 œ. œ œ. œ œœ œ œœ œ œœ™ 8bœ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. >œ œ #œ nœ œ R œ œ . . . . œ . . . . œ . . . . œ ...... > ...... sf f f meno f

17 Example 1.1 continued

12 13 A’ r > 72 r œbœ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ - œ œ œ œ . . ° bœ bœ œnœ œ œ- œ- œ œ bœbœ œ. . . ‰ ‰ ≈ ‰ œ œ œbœ œ œ R ≈ ‰ 7 œbœ 3 œ. ≈ ‰ Œ Œ 2 ∑ 6 Cl. ¢& 16 4 R 4 8 3 f

r r ° œ . . œ . . ∑ œ œ œbœ œ œ nœ œ œ. œ œ œbœ œ œ nœ œ œ. 7 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ 6 A Tpt. ¢& 16 4 4 8

...... j j r j œ. nœ œ œ. œ œ . œ œj œ œ j œ. œ œ œ. œ œ . œ œj œ œ pizz. arco spiccato ° #œ œnœ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 7 ™ 3 2 6 Vln. & œ œ œ œ 16 œ ‰ 4 ‰ 4 ‰ 8 œ . . . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . . . leggiero ...... sf p opizz. o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ ? ∑ ∑ ∑ 7 ‰™ 3 ‰ J œ œ 2 œ œ 6 Cb. ¢ 16 4 4 8 sf p [sempre]

78 14 r Solo r œ- œ . . 15 ° œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ#œœ. œ. œ œ œ ? 6 ∑ 2 ∑ 3 ∑ 6 ‰ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ 6 ‰ J 5 J 4 Bsn. ¢ 8 4 4 8 8 4 8 8 8 p p ° , , , , 6 ‰ 2 3 6 ∑ 5 ‰ ‰ j 2 6 ‰ Œ™ Œ™ Œ j 5 ≈ ≈ 4 Vln. &8 œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ 4 œ œ 8 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4#œ œ 8 8 œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ. œ...... > . œ. œ. . œ. . > mf p mf > o o o o o o o o o o o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 6 œ œ œ 2 œ œ 3 œ œ œ 6 œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ 6 œ œ œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ 4 Cb. ¢ 8 4 4 8 8 4 8 8 8

16 17 °88 . . . >. ? 4 œ œ œ œ œ. œ 3 œ#œ ‰ 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 6 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ Bsn. ¢ 8 8 4 8 4 4 4

° . ? 4 Œ ‰ œ 3 œ#œ œ. 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 6 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ Tbn. ¢ 8 8 4 8 4 4 4 p

° , , spiccato ≥ spicc. ten. ,ten. spicc. spicc. 4 ‰ 3 ‰ 2 6 ‰ 2 ‰ 3 ≈2 ‰ Vln. & 8 8 œ 4 œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ j 4 œ œ œ 4#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ >...... > > . . . . > ...... p mf [p] [mf] p poco sf [mf] p o o o o o o o o o o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 4 œ œ 3 œ 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ 6 œ œ œ 2 œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ 2 œ œ œ œ Cb. ¢ 8 8 4 8 4 4 4

99 arco ° 6 Œ ‰ ‰ 3 ∑ 2 œ ≈ ‰ Vln. & œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 4 œ œœœR œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ œ œ ...... f R pizz. œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 œ Œ 2 ∑ Cb. ¢ 4 4

18 Figure 1.1 highlights various iterations of the motives that unite to form the repetitions within “Airs.” As a departure from van den Toorn’s definition of block repetition, I suggest that a different methodology would offer a sharper rationalization of the figures contained within the movement. Viewing these repetitions through the lens of ordered succession may prove to be a much more valuable tool, especially when considering that some of the recurrences reside in a larger block or line. There are instances in which the initial sounding of a line presents itself as a distinct entity, only to have a subsequent entrance of the complete and longer block. In the opening A section, block A2 enters first, sounding twice before the entrance of the A1 fragment. As it will be shown later in this paper, A1 and A2 are actually part of one block that has been separated. The connection between B1 and B2 is shared in the lower voice of B2’s harmony. As a stepwise upper voice enters on the downbeats, the lower harmony of B2 includes a leap followed by a stepwise descent just like the B1 motive. The meandering

C blocks are ascending and descending lines that move mostly by step with no added harmonies, and the entrances of the Devil are marked by announcements of C1. The purpose motive D is a brief, bridging movement between the B and A’ sections. The bass ostinato, identified as motive X, functions as a foundation by which juxtaposed and superimposed fragments can interact and neither changes nor stops, except at the closures of A and A’.

Horlacher’s theory of ordered succession expands the discussion of repetition and block form. Her models account for single lines and their manifestations as they move through a composition. Because repetitions in single lines can present themselves as

19 fragments of fragments, her method serves to reveal the relationship amongst reiterations of the same motive and show how they relate to previous statements.

Figure 1.2:Figure Horlacher’s 2.1 Horlacher’s list of listordered of ordered succession succession in multiplein single and iterations multiple. (iterationsOnly the first two iterations are(only included.) the first 21two iterations have been included.

Ordered succession within a Ordered succession within a single line single superimposition

XXXX

Histoire’s repetitions are unique because fragments of a line or block are declared before a complete statement of the intact entity. The principal of ordered succession reasons that motivic reiterations operate simultaneously as evolving and immobile

21 This figure is a reinterpretation of the figures in Horlacher, Building Blocks, 26.

20 figures, and that these structures (functioning as lines or blocks) are perceived paradoxically as both dynamic and inert.22 In Figure 1.2, the first column which denotes the ordered successions within a single line illustrates the different iterations of a line in which the first exists as a complete statement, while the second or third either completes the ending gesture or it begins but does not end. The second column of the figure shows the interactions through superimposition where a line relates to material (the X’s) through the various alignments over the course of the composition. Referring back to the A1 and

A2 motivic fragments in my discussion of Histoire with the descriptions of ordered succession brings a higher level of understanding to the roles of these repetitions. Their soundings fit the characterization of ordered succession within a single line wherein A1 is the ending gesture of the complete line and A2 is the beginning.

As we examine the interactions of the blocks contained in Histoire, the question of the origin of the blocks must also be addressed. During the years after The Rite of

Spring, particularly 1914-1920, the Stravinsky’s ensembles became noticeably smaller compared to his previous large-scale orchestral works, such as The Firebird (1909-1910) and Fireworks (1908). What factors provoked this shift to the more intimate nature of a chamber group, and how did these influences inform the composer’s practice? A formalist’s rendering of Stravinsky’s turn might dismiss the nature of this shift as a nostalgic ideology harbored by the composer during his neoclassical period. To some extent I agree, however, I offer another perspective and propose that parts of Histoire were influenced by specific chamber pieces, particularly string quartets. Stravinsky refers

22 Horlacher, Building Blocks, 27.

21 to the concept of the string quartet as “the most lucid conveyor of musical ideas ever fashioned, and the most human and singing of instrumental means; or, if it was not thus,

Beethoven made it that way.”23 Stravinsky’s borrowings have also been the subject of debate as the composer often gave conflicting accounts of his inspirations. This reduction in instrumentation eventually bled into his theatrical productions, although for the purposes of this section my discussion will center on the effects of chamber works on

Histoire. In instances where the composer would reveal the source of his inspirations for certain pieces, the responses would often obstruct or, in some cases, dissolve any attempt to use his words to forge a true connection between his ideas and the music he created. I will examine two possible sources that Stravinsky may have used as models for the motivic repetition contained in the “Airs” of Histoire.

In his conversations with Robert Craft, Stravinsky often spoke of Beethoven’s influence on his compositional process, particularly referencing Beethoven’s string quartets. Though he reserves a great deal of his admiration for the Op. 133 fugue,24 I believe Stravinsky also incorporates motives found in the first movement of Beethoven’s quartets, Op. 18, no. 2, in the second section of Histoire.

My analysis will focus on “Airs” to demonstrate the apparent connection between

Beethoven’s second string quartet and the first movement of Stravinsky’s Three Pieces

23 Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Memories and Commentaries (London: Faber and Faber, 2002), 285. 24 Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Dialogues and a Diary, Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963), 24.

22 for String Quartet, and the influence these two quartets had on its structural components, particularly the formation of blocks. As of yet, there has been no mention of these two influences on Histoire, and most of the commentary has centered on the influence of abandoned projects and fragments found in Stravinsky’s sketches. Through my analysis,

I suggest that the two string quartets mentioned above were an integral part of the formation of the repetitions in “Airs”.

The completion of Three Pieces came just one year after the premiere of The Rite of Spring, and is very much similar to the repetitive structures housed in Stravinsky’s other compositions completed around the same period. Where Three Pieces differs from other works is in the construction of literal repetitions of the opening material. In the first movement, Horlacher describes how Stravinsky offsets the effects of the duplications through various shifts and layering of the four parts, and also points out that this level of exact thematic recurrence is uncommon, even for Stravinsky’s music.25 Stravinsky dismisses the notion of his music precluding or being partial to the techniques of the

Second Viennese School, saying that his quartet was not influenced by Schoenberg and

Webern and that his quartet is “thinner and more repetitive than Schoenberg of the same date.”26

Corresponding to a Type I block form, the first of Stravinsky’s Three Pieces for

String Quartet does not adhere to a single continuous meter. Yet, the shifting of meter is

25 Horlacher, Building Blocks, 11. 26 Stravinsky and Craft, Memories and Commentaries, 265.

23 steady, even as it changes: the piece is made up of three-measure successions of one 3$ measure and two 2$ measures. In Example 1.2 the opening 13 measures contain complete statements of each ostinato, and because of varying lengths, the superimpositions of the parts cause the voice alignments to shift upon successive repeats of the ostinato.

Example 1.2: Stravinsky, “Three Pieces,” mvt. 1, mm. 1-13

Sur le sol ≥ ≤ ≥ ≥ ° ≤ ≥ ≤ ≥ ≤ j ≥ ≤ talon talon 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ j 3 œ j ‰ œ 2 Violin I &4 4 4 œ 4 . œ. . œ 4 > œ > 4

arco ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 pizz. Œ Œ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 Œ 2 Violin II &4 4 4 4 4 #œ œ 4 œ ' ' #œ #œ mf ﬀ ' ' excessivement B 3 ˙™ 2 ˙ ˙ 3 ˙™ 2 ˙ ˙ 3 ˙™ 2 arco 4 4 4 ™ 4 4 4 #˙™ ˙ ˙ #œ ‰ Œ Œ Viola p R 3 2 3 œ 2 œ œ 3 œ œ 2 pizz. { B 4 ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ 4 Ó 4 Œ Œ 4 Œ 4 sempre mf ? 3 2 3pibzzœ. œ 2bœ bœ 3bœ œ 2 Violoncello 4 ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ 4 bœ œ œ 4 bœ œ bœ œ 4 bœ œ œ 4 ¢ bœ bœ bœ bœ f p f p f p sempre simile

8 ≥ ≤ ≥ ≤ ≥ ≤ ≥ ≤ ≥ ≤ ≥ ≤ ≥ ° 2 j œ 3 j 2 œ≥ . œ. 3 Vln. I &4 œ ‰ œ œ œ œ . œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ ‰ 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ . . . > . . > ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 2 Œ 3 Œ Vln. II &4 4 4 #œ œ #œ œ 4 ' ' #œ #œ ' ' #œ #œ ﬀ ' ' ﬀ ' ' 2 ˙ ˙ 3 ˙™ 2 ˙ ˙ 3 ˙™ Vla. B 4 4 4 4

2 œ œ 3 œ œ 2 œ œ 3 œ Vla.{ B 4 Œ Œ 4 Œ 4 Œ Œ 4 Œ

? 2bœ bœ 3bœ œ 2bœ bœ 3bœ Vc. 4 bœ œ bœ œ 4 bœ œ œ 4 bœ œ bœ œ 4 bœ œ ¢ bœ bœ bœ bœ bœ bœ

Notable among the shifts is the descending F♯-E-D♯-C♯ tetrachord of the second violin part beginning in measure 7. Each of the statements of this four note motive enter earlier and earlier against the first violin melody as if it is trying to escape the monotony of it’s own soundings. Jonathan Kramer suggests that this attention to metrical alignment

24 “is a deliberate exploration into proportion control.”27 Figure 1.3 shows the second violin alignments with the five repetitions of the first violin melody in what I refer to as a “static shift.” A static shift occurs when a block (or line) moves against a fixed repetition in order to complete a gesture to align itself with either the beginning or the end of the complete unit. The movement is analogous to Horlacher’s ordered succession within a single superimposition (shown the second column of Figure 1.1) except that it has a specific goal to move to a boundary position. This seemingly arbitrary movement actually serves to give shape to a piece and generally signals the end of a section or entire work. The shift in the first movement of Three Pieces finally occurs early enough so that the final repetition of the second violin part is sounded simultaneously with the beginning of the final statement of the first violin melody, thus completing its effort to reach the beginning of the primary melody.28

27 Jonathan D. Kramer, “Discontinuity and Proportion,” in Confronting Stravinsky, ed. Jann Pasler (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1986), 176. 28 Horlacher also points out the shifting superimpositions of the second violin ostinato in Horlacher, Building Blocks, 18.

25 Figure 1.3. “Static shift” through the first movement of Three Pieces between the first and second violin parts

VIOLIN I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

VIOLIN II 9

VIOLIN I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

VIOLIN II 8

VIOLIN I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

VIOLIN II 4

VIOLIN I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

VIOLIN II 2

VIOLIN I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

VIOLIN II 1

As illustrated in Figure 1.3, the aftereffect of this technique is a conflicting environment containing qualities that, when emphasized, reveal Stravinsky’s astute attentiveness to formal groupings and offers supplementary processes for approaching comparable works that exhibit similar interactions. As explained later in this chapter, this shifting technique appears in “Airs” of Histoire and its function is not only to facilitate development, but also serves to imbue the section with the function of conventional form.

The most prominent repetition in the first movement of the Three is the G-A-B-C tetrachordal ostinato. Curiously, a motive from this theme makes its way to the “Airs”

26 section of Histoire and is presented in different iterations as an A-B-C♯-D. Although not an exact copy, Stravinsky alludes to the tetrachord by placing its fourth note in the clarinet after the bassoon begins a motive with the first three as shown in Example 1.3.

The spirit of the tune is present in the downward gesture of the final two notes of each melodic group. Stravinsky treats this descending motion to diminution when compared with the violin line from Three Pieces, but on its last entrance in the clarinet part of

Histoire, the original balance is restored when the motive ends with two quarter notes.

This practice of “self-quotation” was not uncommon for Stravinsky as many of his works contain references to past compositions.

Example 1.3 “Airs,” mm. 30-35 © 1987 & 1992 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany. Reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher.

30 31 32 33 34 Solo 35 ° 5 2 5 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Clarinet in A &8 ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 4 Ó #œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ p #œ œ œ œ œ ? 5 Œ 2 ∑ 5 3 Œ Œ Bassoon ¢ 8 4 8 4 p

Stravinsky ironically makes statements about Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony that mirror the criticisms and analyses of Adorno and assertions by others of developmental lethargy within his own works. Stravinsky proclaims that

. . . nothing in the Ninth is as perennially surprising and delightful, . . . Consider the Adagio without prejudice—or try to. The echo-dialogue of winds and strings lacks variation, and the Andante moderato, with the pedal A and the repeated octaves, sixths, thirds, is harmonically heavy . . . I find the movement rhythmically monotonous—for Beethoven—except in its finest episode, the E flat Adagio, but the effect even of that beautiful

27 passage is deadened by the rhythmic inanity of the subsequent 12/8. Another weakness, or miscalculation, is the repetition, after only six measures, of the heroics at measure 121. What has happened to Beethoven’s need for variation and development? The movement is the antithesis of true symphonic form.29

Stravinsky’s reading of Beethoven’s final symphony exists as an odd characterization, especially considering his own penchant for composing pieces that convey a feel of motivic immobility. The contradiction within the criticisms leveled at

Beethoven’s work is further compounded when taken into account alongside Stravinsky’s own statements concerning the nature of repetition. In response to a question concerning the repetitive component of his works and its purpose, Stravinsky responds, “It is static— that is, antidevelopment; and sometimes we need a contradiction to development.

However, it became a vitiating device and was at one time over-employed by many of us.”30 Though he acknowledges that overuse of a particular compositional device can transform something remarkably novel into nothing more than an ineffective exploit,

Stravinsky also admits that the recurring aspects of his technique is a necessary evil to combat the traditional notion of motivic development.

Alternatively, Stravinsky’s polemics may have been his attempt to provide a level of social counterpoint to the popular opinion of Beethoven’s works. Clive Bell recalls attending a party in which Stravinsky attended along with Pablo Picasso, James Joyce,

29 Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Dialogues (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982), 112-113. These statements are reprinted in Stravinsky and Craft, Memories and Commentaries, 284. 30 Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Conversations with Igor Stravinsky (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1959), 26.

28 and Marcel Proust. He describes a “tense” encounter between Proust and Stravinsky after

Stravinsky criticizes some of Beethoven’s compositions when approached by Proust to engage in small talk.31 In spite of these statements, the reasoning may have been explained when Robert Craft inquired about the details of the event in one of his numerous talks with the composer. Stravinsky recalled discussing the quality of

Beethoven’s works, saying that he would have participated in [Proust’s] interest “were it not a commonplace among the intellectuals of that time and not a musical judgment but a literary pose.”32 Nevertheless, the composer goes on to praise Beethoven’s string quartets, singling out the Op. 59 set and the Grosse Fuge in a lengthy discussion of their complexity and their anticipation of the techniques found in the music of Schumann and

Mendelssohn.33

The impression made by Beethoven’s string quartets on Stravinsky is noteworthy when examining the progressively smaller ensembles employed by the composer after

The Rite. While he does not mention Beethoven’s opus 18 quartets in his chats with

Robert Craft, Stravinsky would have undoubtedly known the scores; his son, Soulima, owned the entire opus 18 set.34 I assert that the motivic cells that contribute to the formation and interaction of specific blocks in “Airs” in Histoire are modeled on the material found in the transition section of the first movement of Beethoven’s Op. 18, No.

2, shown in Example 1.4.

31 Clive Bell, Old Friends (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1956), 180. 32 Stravinsky & Craft, Conversations, 99. 33 Stravinsky & Craft, Dialogues, 113-114. 34 Housed in the Igor and Soulima Stravinsky Collection (Series 5) of the Juilliard Manuscript Collection.

Example 1.4: Beethoven, Op. 18, No. 2, mvt. 1, mm. 21-35

21 œ ° #2 œ œœ œ#œœœœœœœ œœ œ œ œœœœ & 4 œ™ œœ œœœœœœœœ J ‰ Œ ∑ Œ ‰ ‰ #œ œ œ. œ. p #2 f sf p & 4 œ™ ‰ Œ ™ œœ œ œœœœœœœ œœ‰ ‰ œœ œ œœœœœœœ œ. œ. œœ œœœœœœœœ œ œ œ œ œ . . sf p f sf p . . #2 j j œ™ œ. œ œ œ. œ. #œ œ œ. œ. nœ. œ. B 4 œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ. œ. J J ‰ ‰ J œ. œ. . . . . f sf p f sf p ?#2 œ. œ. œ™ ‰ ∑ ∑ œ™ ‰ ∑ ‰ œ ‰ ∑ ¢ 4 œ. œ. œ. . f sf f sf . 30 ™ ™ . #œ. œ œ. . ° # œ nœ œ œ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ. œ œ œ. . & ‰ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ.#œ œ œ. 3 3 œ cresc. . f 3 3 # œ#œ œnœ œ œ œ œ 3 & œ œ ‰ ‰ nœ œ œ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ. ‰ œ œ . #œ . œ œ#œ. . . . cresc. f . . œ B##œ ‰ ‰ œ œ œ œ. œ. #œ œ œ œ. œ œ #œ. œ œ œ œ. œnœ œ #œ ‰ . #œ. œ J J . œ œ œ cresc. f 3 3 œ ?# ‰ œ ‰ ∑ j ‰ œ ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ ‰ #œ œ. ¢ œ. . œ J œ J œ œ. . cresc. f

When viewed together in Example 1.5, the resemblance is brought to bear even more when considering, in addition to the striking rhythmic mirroring, both works share the same 2$ meter, make use of the violin to invoke the statements of the thematic material, and employ similar piano dynamic markings. In the Beethoven quartet, the transition theme is stated twice, followed by entrances of the sixteenth note motive that are separated by rests. Stravinsky mimics these entrances by beginning “Airs” with the sixteenth note entrances and presents the full statement last.

30 Example 1.5: “Airs” and Beethoven: op. 18, no. 2 thematic comparison © 1987 & 1992 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany. Reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher.

, , ° #2 Stravinsky, “Airs,” 4 ¢& œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ mm. 9-11 œ œ™ œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. mf p This last 16th pair only appears in m.4

° #2 œ Beethoven, Op. & 4 œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ J œ. œ. 18, No. 2, mvt. I, f sf p mm. 21-24 #2 ¢& 4 œ™ œ. œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ f sf p

Another conspicuous parallel between both works is the presence of G as a tonal center; the excerpt by Beethoven is rooted in G major (although it quickly modulates because of the nature of the transitory passage), while Stravinsky’s does not establish a key, but embraces G as a focal point, noticeably in the bass ostinato. In the opening section of Stravinsky’s “Airs,” G is the highest and lowest written pitch of both the violin

(G3-G4) and the contrabass (G3-G4, [sounding G2-G3]), and the violin invokes F#, the leading tone of G, in measure 17 as the only altered tone from an otherwise entirely natural note passage. Horlacher also notes the “G-centered” melody of the string quartet discussed earlier.35

In Stravinsky’s piece (shown in Musical Example 1.6), the violin enters over the bass’s eighth note ostinato with a set of alternating stopped and single sixteenth notes on

35 Horlacher, Building Blocks, 8.

31 the upbeat of the second measure, resembling the upbeat of the second measure of

Beethoven’s transition section where the sixteenth notes of the violins are written over eighth notes. While Beethoven’s excerpt does not employ the use of an ostinato, there is a continuous succession of eighth notes found in the viola that are exchanged with the cello during a rest.

Example 1.6: “Airs,” opening, mm. 1-11 © 1987 & 1992 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany. Reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher.

1 , , ° 2 ™ 3 ≥ 2 Vl. &4 ∑ Œ ‰ Œ Œ 8 ‰ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ œ œ. œ œ™ œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. p spiccato mf p œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œo œo pizz.œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 3 œ œ œ 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ C.B. ¢ 4 8 4 mf p [sempre]

2 3 4 °12 . . . >. ∑ ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 ‰ œ œ œ œ. œ 3 œ œ œ. 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 CThel. & static shift mentioned8 earlier4 in the8 first movement4 J 8 4Three Pieces8 returns4 in p >œ. ? ∑ ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Œ ‰ 3 œ œ œ. 2 œ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Bsn. ¢ 8 4 8 4 J 8 4 œ 8 4 “Airs” and is also employed as a form-defining signal of closure.p The goal of this ≥ ° , , ten. ten. ≤ , , , , ≥ >. œ. ‰ 5 j 2 j 5 ≈ ≈ 2 ‰ 3 ‰ 2 œ œ 5 œ 2 Vln. & œ œ œ j 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4#œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ 4 8 œ 4 œ 8 œ™ œ œ 4 movement isœ œforœ œ theœ ™violinœ œ œmotiveœ œ œ œtoœ completeœ œ™ œ œaœ. shiftœ œ. œ. againstœ œ œ œ œ œtheœ fourœ notesœ of the bass > . œ > > . œ. œ. . œ. . > >. . . . œ œ poco sf > poco sf o o o o o o o o o o o o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ 2 œ œ 3 œ 2 œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ 2 ostinato,Cb. ¢starting with the8 last and moving4 one8 pitch backwards4 8 4in each appearance.8 4 The

16th note stops of the violin motive of Op. 18 are sounded three times against the 4th, 3rd,

nd 25 5 . > > > . ° #œ œ #œœ œ #œ . œ œ and 2 notes? 2 ∑of3 the∑ 3bass,∑ however∑ the2 static∑ 5 Œshift isœ interrupted,2 œ œ causing∑ 5 œ theœ gesture3 to end Bsn. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 p

...... - > unfinished.° 2 œThusœ œ œ 3 œ œwhenœ 3#œ œ this#œ # œsectionœ>œ œ#>œ 2returns#œ >>œ 5at the end2 of the composition,5 the static3 shift Vln. 4 œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ 4 œ œœ œ œ œ œœ 4 œ 8 ‰ 4 ‰ 8 ‰ 4 & œ œ œ nœ œ œ œœ#œ œœ#œ nœ œ #œ œ œ œ œ - . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. . œ œ. œ. œ. . œ œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. o o o o o p subioto mf o p reappears andœ œ theœ expressionœ œ œ œ œis œallowedœ œ toœ completeœ its movementœ œ successfully alongside ? 2 œ œ 3 œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ 5 œ œ Œ 2 Œ ‰ J œ œ ‰ 5 ∑ 3 Cb. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 the four bass notes.

34 6 j > . Solo . bœ œ ˙ œ œ. >™ œ œ œbœ œ œ œ œ œbœ œ œ œ œ œ œ ° 3 œ œ œ œ. œ. œ œ 5 œ œ J 3 2 œ 5 œ 2 Cl. &4 Ó 8 4 4 ∑ J 8 4

p poco sf sub. p sim. #œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ ? 3 Œ Œ 5 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 Bsn. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4

≥ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ° 3 5 3 #œ 2 #œ 5 #œ #œ 2 Vln. &4 œ ≈ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ nœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ œ œnœ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ œ . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. > œ œ œ p poco più forte 32 poco più forte sub. ? 3 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 Cb. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 3

12 13 r > 72 r œbœ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ - œ œ œ œ . . ° bœ bœ œnœ œ œ- œ- œ œ œ œ œ bœbœ œ. œ. . ‰ ‰ ≈ ‰ œ bœ œ R ≈ ‰ 7 bœ 3 œ. ≈ ‰ Œ Œ 2 ∑ 6 Cl. ¢& 16 4 R 4 8 3 f

r r ° œ . . œ . . ∑ œ œ œbœ œ œ nœ œ œ. œ œ œbœ œ œ nœ œ œ. 7 ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ 6 A Tpt. ¢& 16 4 4 8

78 14 r Solo r œ- œ . . 15 ° œ œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ#œœ. . œ œ ? 6 ∑ 2 ∑ 3 ∑ 6 ‰ œ œ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ 6 ‰ œ œ J œ 5 J œ 4 Bsn. ¢ 8 4 4 8 8 4 8 8 8 p p ° , , , , 6 ‰ 2 3 6 ∑ 5 ‰ ‰ j 2 6 ‰ Œ™ Œ™ Œ j 5 ≈ ≈ 4 Vln. &8 œ œ œ œ œ 4 œ 4 œ œ 8 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 4#œ œ 8 8 œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ. œ...... > . œ. œ. . œ. . > mf p mf > o o o o o o o o o o o o o œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 6 œ œ œ 2 œ œ 3 œ œ œ 6 œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ œ œ 2 œ œ 6 œ œ œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ 4 Cb. ¢ 8 4 4 8 8 4 8 8 8 Example 1.7: “Airs,” closing, mm. 88-107 © 1987 & 1992 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland,16 Australia, Canada, South Africa1 and7 all so-called °88 . . . >. ? 4 œ œ œ œ œ. œ 3 œ#œ ‰ 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 6 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ reversionaryBs nterritories. ¢ 8 where8 4 the copyright © 19968 is held4 jointly by Chester4 Music4 Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany. Reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher. ° . ? 4 Œ ‰ œ 3 œ#œ œ. 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 6 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 3 ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ Tbn. ¢ 8 8 4 8 4 4 4 p

Figure 1.4: Static shift in “Airs” between the 16th notes of the violin and and bass ostinato

Static Shift of A Static Shift of A’ through opening 11 through closing 17 measures measures

1 1 , , 1 1 , , ° 2 ° ™ ° 2 ° ™ 3 ≥ 2 ≥ , ,3 ≥ 2 ≥ , , Vl. &4 ∑ 2Œ ™ Vl. &4 ‰ ∑Œ 2ŒŒ ™ 8 ‰ ‰ Œœ œ 3Œ 4 2 8 ‰ œ œ 3 4 2 Vl. 4 ∑ Œœ œ œ Vl. 4 ‰ ∑Œ œ ŒŒœ œ œ œ œ œ 8œ ‰œ‰ Œ œœŒ œ4 œ œ œ œ8œ‰œ œ 4 œ œ & œ œ œ. œ œ œœœ. œ œ œ œœ. œœ œ& œ œ œœœ.œœ œ.œœœœœœ.œœœœ.œœœœœ.œœœœœ. œœœœ œœœ œœ œ œœœœœœ.œœœ œœœœœœ. œœœ™ œœ.œœœ œ.œœ œœœœœ. œœ œœœœœœœ œœœ œœ œ œœ™ œœ œ œ. œ œ œœœ. œœ œœ œ œ . . . . .œ. œ. . . œ. œ. œ. .. œ. œ. œ. . œ...... œ.. œ..œ...œ..œ... ..œ.œ..œ.œ. .œ.œ...œ.œ.œ.œ. .œ.œ. . œ. . œ. œ . . .œ.. œ. .. .œ. . œ.œœ.. .. œ.œœ.™ .œ. .. .œ.. œ. . . œ..œœ. œœ. . œ. œ. œ. œ. . œ™ . . .œ. œ. . .. œ.. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ. p spiccato p spiccato mf p mf p p spiccato p spiccato mf p mf p œo œoo o œo 4o œo œo œooœoo oo œoœo ooœo œo oœo oœo o œooœo o œoo œo o oœo œoo o œo o pizz.œ œ œ œ œ pizzœ.œ œ œœ œœ œœœœ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 2 œ œ pœizz.œœœ œ œ œ œ ?œ2œ œœ œœ œpœizz.œœœœœœ œœœœœœ œœ œœ3œ œœœ œ œ œ œœœœœ2œœ œœœ œœ œ œœ3 œœœ œœœ œœ 2œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ C.B. 4 ? 2 œ œ C.B. œ 4 ? 2œ œ œœ œœ 8 3œ œ 4 œ œ 2 œœ 8 œ 3 œ 4 œ œ 2 œ œ œ ¢ C.B. ¢ 4 ¢ C.B. .¢ 4 8 4 8 4 mf p [sempre] mf p [sempre] mf p [sempre] mf p [sempre]

1 1 1 , , 1 ≥ , , ° 2 ° ° 2 ° ™ 3 ≥ 2≥ , , 3 2≥ , , ∑2 Œ™ Vl. &4 ‰ Œ ∑2 Œ Œ ™ ‰ ‰ 3Œ Œ 2 8 ‰ œ3œ 4 2 Vl. &4 ∑ Œ™ Vl. &4 ‰ Œ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ‰ œ‰ Œ 4 Œœ œ œ œ 8 ‰ œ œ œ œ 4 œ œ Vl. &4 œ œ œ œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ œ œœœœœœœ.œœœœœœœœœ.œœœœœœœœœ. œœœ œ8œœ œœ œ œœ œœœœœœ. œ œ4œ œœœ.œœ™œœ œ œ. œ œœ œœœ œ œ œœœ œ œœ œœœœ œ œ œ œ™œ œ œ œ. œœœ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ . . . .œ. .œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. .œ.œ. œ œ. œ ...... œ. .œ.œ..œ..œ.œ.. .œ. .œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ.œ. .œœ.œ..œ.œœ. . œ.œ œ œ. . . œ œ. œ. .œ.œ.. œ. .œœ. œ. .œœ.™ œ. .œ. .œ. .œ. . œ. œ. œ. œ. œ.. œ œ. œ œ. œ .œ.™ .œ. .œ. . . œ. œ. œ. . œ. œ. œ...... p ...... m.f . . . . p 12 2 p spicc1at2o 2 3 spiccpato mf 3 4 p mf 4 p 12 2 p spiccato 12 2 3 spiccato . m>.f 3 4p. >. 4 ° ° o 5o ° o ° 2 3o œo o5oœo 5 o oœo 2 2oœ œ. œ.œo .oœ 3 œ.œo .œ.œ.o o2>œ.5 o o œo 2 5 oœoœ. œ. . œœo 32œ.œ.œ.o. 2>œ.œo o œo o5 œo o2 ∑ ∑ œ ∑ o œ ∑o 5 ∑œ ∑ po∑izz. œ∑ ∑2o œ∑œ ∑ oœ5 ∑ œ5∑ o‰œ ∑ œœ2J 2 œœ∑o œœ.œ 3 œ∑œœo ∑.œ25 ∑ o ‰ œœ ∑œ2Jo5 œ œœœ. 32œ∑œ œ. 2 ∑ œ ∑ 5œ 2 Cl. & pizz.œ∑ ∑œ œ 8 Cl.∑ œ&œ ∑ œ4œ∑œ ∑ pizz. œ∑œœ 8∑ ∑8 œœœ∑ ∑ 4 œ4∑œœ ∑ ‰8œœ œ∑ œ4J8 œ ∑œœ œ œ ∑œ4 8∑ œ ∑ œ‰84œ ∑œ4J œ œ œ∑ 8 ∑ œ4 ∑ Cl. ?&2 œ œ pizz.œœ œ œ œ œœ 8œ Clœ. &?œœ2 œ œ œ œœ œœœ4œ œ œœ œœœœœ 8 œœ œ8œ œ3œœ œœœ œ4œœœ4œœ œ2 œ œœ œ8œ œ œ œ4œœ8œœ œ3œœœ œœ4œ8œ œ 2œœœ œ8œ4 œ œ4œ œœ œ œœ œ œ 8 œ œ 4 C.B. 4 ? 2 œ œ œC.B. 4 ?œ2 œ œ 8 p 3 œ 4 œ 2 œ 8œ p 3 œ 4 2 ¢ C.B. ¢ 4 ¢ C.B. ¢ 4 8 p 4 8 p 4 mf p [sempre] mf p [sempre] mf p [sempre] mf p [sempre] >. > >. > ? 5 ? 2 5 5 2 2 œ 3 œ œ œ. 2œ.5 œ . 2 5 œ 32œ œ œ. 2œ. œ . 5 2 Bsn. ∑ ? ∑ ∑ ∑∑ 8 Bsn.∑∑ 5 ∑ ∑? 4∑ ∑ ∑∑ ∑∑2 8∑∑ ∑8∑ 5∑ ∑ 5∑∑ 4 4Œ∑ ∑∑‰ 2J 2Œ8 ∑∑‰ 48œ3 œ∑œ ∑œ 25œ∑ 4 8∑Œ ‰∑∑ 2J Œ584 ‰∑ 4 3œ2 œœ œ 2 œ∑ 8 ∑∑ 54 ∑ 2 ¢ Bsn. ¢ ¢ 8 Bsn. ¢ 4 8 8 4 4 J 8 48 œ 4 8 J 84 4 œ 8 4 p p 1 1 p, , 1 1 p , , ° 2 ° 2 3 ≥ ≥ 2 , , 3 ≥ ≥ 2 , , ° 2 ∑ ten. Œ™ ten. °‰ Œ2 ∑ten.Œ tŒen™. ‰ 3 ‰ Œ Œ 2 , , ≥ ‰ 3 . 2 , , ≥ . Vl. &4 , , ∑ , Œ™ , ten. œ≤ ten. œ Vl. œ&4, ,‰, Œ ,∑, Œ , œŒt,e™n. , ≤teœnœ. œœ 8 œœ œ‰ œ, ‰œ,Œœ 4Œ,œ œ, œ ≥ œ, œ8, œ œ‰œ≥œ>. œœ œ 4 œ. ≥ , , œ ≥>. œœ . ° V°l. &4 5œ œ œœ °œj œœœ œœœ œœ≤°œj œVœl.œ2œ&4 œ œ5œœœœœœœ5jœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ≤œjœœœœœ2œ2œ8œœœœœœ œœœœ3œœ œœœœœ4œœ2œ5œ œœœœœœœ™ œœœœœœœœ2œœœ5œ œ≥œ8œœœœœœœ œœœ3œ2œœœœ œ >œ2.œœ4 œœ œœœ™ œ œ œ5 œœœ≥œ œœœœœœœ2œœœ œ>œ. œ Vln. & ‰ œ ‰ j 8. .Vlnœ.œ.&œ.œ. .œ5‰.œœ.œœ.œ. œ.œ œ.œ‰. 4œ.#œ 2 .j .8.œ .œj. œ...8œœœ..œœ.œ.5.œ≈.œ..œ..œj.œœ. ≈.œ5.œ.œ.œ.œ..œ4œœ≈œ4.œ#.œ≈œ.œœœ œ2‰ 28.‰œ .œœ.j .œ4‰œ8.œ3œ..‰œœ.≈.œœj.œœ2œ.œ5≈.™ .œ. œ.œ. 4.œœ≈.œ8.œ.œœœ.œ.≈™ .œ .œœ2.œ‰œ.œ.58œ.4œ‰œ.œœ œ4‰ 32‰œ œ2 œœ™ . .8 œœœ.œ™. .œ. .œ .œ5.œ4.œ. .œ œ œ 2 Vœlnœ. œ&œ œ œ œ . . j œ8. .Vœl.nœ. œœ.&œ.œœ. œœœœ. œœœœœ 4#œ .œ. ..œj..œœ8. œ. œ..œ8..œ.œœœ. ..œœ.œœœœœœ.œœœ4 4#œ œ.œœ . .œ8œ .œœ .œ.œ48œœ. œ.œ.. œ. .œ œœ.œ.œ4. 8 .œ.™œ. œ. œ8œ4 œ œ 4 œ œ . . . .8.œ™ . . œ. œ 4 œ œ œ œœ™œ œ p œ spicœcatœo œ 2œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœ™œ œœ™œ œp œspœœiccœ.ato œœ .œ œ.œœœœ œmœfœœœœ œ œ3™œ œœœœœ œ .œœœœ . pœ.œ œœ œ œ mœœfœœœ œ œ œœœœœ œœ 4œ pœ œ 12 2 > . œ œ œ™p >œsp.1ic2c.atoœ>. . œ. œ2. œ. œ œ œ œ œ3 œ œ™ >pœ™. .spiœcc.ato.œ œ. œ.. œ .œ. .mœ..fœ.œ œ œ œ œ3œ œ™ œœœ4 œ .œp œ . . .. m. f œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ4 p 12 2 > . > 1>2 . . >.2. . . . > 3 > > . . . >.. . .>. >. . . . > 4 > . . . >. >. . . >. ° poco sf œo o 5œo o >° poco sf°œo > o 2 œ>o œo o œo5 œo o5>o œo>œo o2pooc>o 2sœf œ.>œ. œ.oœ. 3.o .œ œ>. . œo2 5o œo o œo po25c>oo sfœoœ œoœ . œœo.23. .œo œœ. . 2œo o œo o 5 œo o 2 °∑ ppizoz∑c.oœ sf œ∑œ œ ∑5œ ∑∑ œ pocœop ∑sizfz.œ∑ 2œœ∑œœ∑ œ œ∑5œ œ5∑ ∑œ œ‰œ œ2 ∑œ2pœocœoœœ œsœf . œ∑œ3 œ œœœ∑. 2œ 5∑ œœ∑ œ ‰ œ ∑2œ5 pœoœcJo sœf œœœ. œ23 œ œ œ∑.œ 2 ∑œœ ∑5œ œ 2 Cl. & o ∑o pizz.œ ∑o œ8∑ oCl. &œ∑o oo∑4∑ œpizz.oœo∑ ∑ œ 8oœ∑o 8∑ œo ∑oœ ∑4o 4∑ œo ‰œoJ 8 ∑œœœo 4 8∑œ œo oœ∑ o∑œ48 ∑ o œo‰ 48∑œ œoJ œ 4 œo œ ∑ o œ8 ∑ o 4∑ œ Cl. œ&? 2 œ o œœ œœœo œœ œ oœœ 8 œ œClœ. oœ& œ?œœ2œooœœ œœ4œœooœœœ œœœoœoœœ œ8œ œœ8oœoœœ œ3œœœo oœœœ4œ œœo4œœœ œ2œœJoœœ8oœœœ œœ4œœoo 8œœœ œœœ3o œoœ œœ48œœo œœœ oœ2o48œ œœ œo4œœ œœ œœo œ œ œo8œ œ o 4 C.B. œ 4? 2œ œ œ œ œ œ Cœ.Bœ. 4œ?œ2œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œ œ 8 œ3œpœ œ œ œ4 œ 2œ œœ œœ œ 8œœ œp3œ œ œ œ4œ 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? œ Cœ¢.B. ¢œ œ4œ œœ œ œ œ5 œœ œœ?œœœ œ C¢œ.Bœœ.œ¢2œœ.4œœœœœ œœ œ5œœœ 5œœœœœœ œœ œ œœœœ2 28œœ œ œ pœ œ3 œ œœœ425œœœœœœ œ œ œœœ2œ 5œ œ8œœœ œœpœ32œ œ œ 2 4œ œœœ œ œ œ 5 œ œœœ œ 2 œ œ Cb. ? œ œ 8 Cb.œ 5 œ? 4 œ 2œ œ8 œ8œ 5 œ5 œ 4 4 œ œ 2 28 œ 4œ8œ3 25œœ 4 8 œ œ 2 584œ 4œœ32 2 œ 8 œ 54œ œ 2 ¢ Cb. mf p [sempre] ¢ 8 Cb. mf 4 p [sempre] 8 8 4 4 8 48 4 8 84 4 8 4 ¢ mf p [sempre] ¢ mf p [sempre] >. > >œ. >. ? 5 ? ∑? 2 ∑ ∑ 5 5 ∑5 ∑ 2 2 ∑ 2œ 3 œ œœ.∑œ. 2œ 5 . 5∑ 25 Œ 2‰ 23 œ œœœ.32œœœ . 2 ∑ 5 ∑5 2 2 Bsn. ∑? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 8∑ Bsn∑.5 ∑ ∑ ∑4∑ ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 8∑ 8∑ 5∑ ∑ ∑4 Œ 4∑ 2‰ Œ J 8 ‰∑ 34 œœ8∑œœ2 œ ∑ ∑48 ∑ ∑5 Œ J 48∑‰ J 2 4 œœ œ œ 8 ∑ 4∑ ¢ Bsn. ¢ 8¢ Bsn. ¢ 4 8 8 4 4 J 8 4 8 œ 48 48 4 8 4 p p 1 p p 1 ≥ , , ° 2 ™ 3 ≥ 2 , , ≥ ten. ten. Vl. &,24 , t∑en. teŒn™. ‰ ,Œ , Œ , ≥ 38 ‰ œ œ 24 , , ≥ . , , ten. ten.≤ ° Vl. &4 , ∑, , Œten. tœen.≤ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ Œ, œ, œ , œ œ≥, œ, œ 8≥‰ œ œ>. œœ. œ œ œ. 4 œ œ ≥, , œ œ œ >. œ œ . ° ° , , 5 j ≤‰j ° 2 , ,5 œ5œ j œ. œ œ≤œj œ. œ œ2œ 2œ. œ 3 œ œ2jœ. 5œ œ œ≈œ. œœ œ≈œ œ. œ≥2œ5 œ œ œ œ‰ 23œ ‰œ>. œ 2œ œ œœ™ œ œœ≥œ5 œ.œœ œ œ œ. œ2œ >œ. œ Vln. & ‰ j 8 Vlnœ.5œ& œ œ ‰œ 4 2 j 8j œ.8œ.œ5œ. ≈œ.5œœ. œ.≈œ. œ. œ.4œ.œ 4.#œœ.2 2‰ 8 ‰ œ.3œ4. . 8œ. œ.2jœ. .5œœ.œœ. œ.≈. œ4œ8. ≈œ™ 25œœœœ 48 œ.‰œ234‰ œ 2 œ™ œ. œœ8. œ.œ™œ. œ.5œ. œ. œ.4œ. œ. 2 Vln. œ&œ œ‰ œ œ j 8 œVlnœœ. œœ&œ œ œœ œ#œœ œœ4 œ j.œ8œj .œ8 œœ. œœ≈. œœ .≈œœœœœ.4œœœœ4#œ œ‰œ8œ. ‰œ. œœ4œ. 8.œ œœ. œ.œœœœ œ48œ œ ™ œ œ 48 œ œœ4 œ . . 8. œ™ . œ. œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œ œ œœ œœ #œœ ™œ œ œp œœœspœiccato œ. œœœ œœœœœ œœœœ œ œ œ™œœ œ œœ œœœœ. œœ œ.œœ. œœœœœ œmœf œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ p œ 12 2 . œ œ œ œ™œ œ œ œ œ. œ12 œ2>œ. œ œ. œ. œ œ™3œœ œ p™œ sœp.icœcœaœto œœ œ.. œ.. œœ.œ. .œœ. œ œ3œ œœ œ œ™ œ 4œ œœ. œ . .. m. f. œ. œ œ œ œœ œ 4 œ p 12 >2 > . >œ™ œ > œ. œ.12œ. œ2. œ >œ. œ1œ. œ. o 3>œ™ œ o > .> >. . œ.œo. œ. ..>. .œ. . . >..o . >. . 3 o œ œ > 4 o > . . . >.>..o . >. œo œ o 4 o ° poco sf 5 > ° p>oco sf>. . 2 . œo 5 œo>5 >>œo2poco sœf2œ œ. ..œ>œo. 3 .œ œ . 2œo 5 œo>5p2oco sf œ œ œ. ..œ2œo. 3 .œ œ . 2œo œo 5 œo 2 25 ° ∑ poco sf ∑ ∑ 5 ∑25 ° ∑∑ poco sf5> p∑i2zz∑.œ œ ∑ ∑œ œ 5 ∑5Shift∑œ . ∑œ >‰52> œpœo2cœ>oœ∑ sœf . œ 3œ œ∑œœ. 2∑ 5œ ∑ ∑. œ >> ‰52œ∑p>o.cœo œsœf œ . œ2œ3 œ œ œ. 2∑œ œ ∑ œ> 5œ.∑ œ 2 Cl. & 2∑5 ∑ ∑ 8 Cl. ∑& 25 ∑∑ 4 pizz.œ∑ ∑ 5 œ∑ 8∑ 8 #œ ∑œ ∑ œ 4#œ∑œ 4‰œ. œJ >85œ∑ œ >4 œ∑ 8#œ ∑œ #œœ∑.#∑œ84œ .œ‰œœ ∑>>J4 8œ œ>. 4 œ œ ∑#œ . œœ∑8 œ >∑ œ4 . °C?l. 2&œo ° o3œo 3o œo o 8œo °?C2ol. œo &œo ° o3œo?o2œo2 4œo3 oœoœo œ o5oœoœ œo8 o8œ o œoo œ 2#oœoœo24œœœ œoo4œ #œoœœœJœoœ85œoo œo œ4oœo œo8 œ5œoœ o2#œœoœ o3œœœ8œ4o#œœœoœoœ.#œœœœ3œoœoœJ4 8œœoœ2 œ œo4 œo 5œ œo œo œœ#œo8œ. œo œœ3 œ o œ4 Bsn. 4 ∑œ?œ82 ∑œ œ4 3 œ ∑œ 3Bsn. œ 4œ ∑∑Cœ.B?œ. œ82?œ424∑ œœœ4 œ∑3 2 œœ∑œ8œ3Œ œœ5œ ∑ œ4œœ4p œœ2∑ 2 œœœ8œŒ ∑œœœ5œ 8œ œ4 œ38œ 5œpœ 2 4 œœ 24 ∑3 œœ 8 œ œ 5 œœ 4 œ 3 ¢ Bsn. 4 œ ∑ 8œ ∑ 4 œ ¢ ∑ Bœsnœ.C.B. ¢4œ œ4∑œ∑ œ8 4œœ∑ 4 œ∑œœInterrupted∑ 8œ Œ œ œ ∑œ p œœ4 4 œ œ ∑ œœ 8 Œœœ ∑œ œ8 œ8 4pœ œ œ 4 œ4 œ œ∑ œ œ8 œ œ 4 ? œ œ ¢œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ?œ œ œ?¢œœ œœ¢œ2œœ.œœ œœ œœœœ œœœ5 œœ 5œœœ5 œ œ œœ œœœœ2 œ2œœ œœ 2œœ 3œ œ œœ 2œœœ5œœœ œ5œœœ œœ œœ25 œœœ œ2 œœœœ23œ œœ 32 œœ 2 œ œ œ œ5 œœ 5 œœ 2œ œ 2 Cb. ? 8 Cb.5¢ 4 mf 2 8 p8[sempre]p 5 4 4 2 8 34 8 p2 48 5 48 2 4 8 4 ¢ Cb. ¢ 8 Cb. ¢ mf 4 p [sem8pre] 8 p 4 4>. > 8 4 8 p 48 >. > 48 4 8 4 ? ∑ ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ? ∑∑ 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 5 5 ∑ ∑ ∑2 Œ 2 ‰ ∑œ 3 œ.œ œ œ.∑2 .œ 5 ∑ ∑ 52 Œ ∑ ‰ œ2 3 œ.œ œ œ. 2 .œ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Bsn. ? ∑ ∑ ∑ 8 5Bsn. ∑ ? ∑∑ 4 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ 8∑ 85 5 ∑ ∑ 4 ∑24Œ 2 J‰8∑J 3 œ4 œ∑28œ 5œ ∑ ∑84 52 Œ ∑ J4‰8 J2 3 œ4 œ 2 œ œ ∑8 5 ∑ 4 2 B°¢sn. ¢ œ. . . œ. œ.. . œ. .#œ- . . 8- °#>œB¢sn.>œ.¢ . . >œ. œ.. #.œ4œ. >. #œ- . . - #8>œ 8 > > 4#œ >4 8 4 8 84 4 8 4 8 4 2 œ œ° 3 œœœ. œ. 3œ œ œ œœ. œ#œ #œ œœ 2œœœ œœœ°#œ 3 œ>2œ.œœ.>>œ3œ œ œ œ#.œœ#5œ>#œ œœ œœœ œ#œ 2 >œ2 œ >>œœ p #œ 5> 5 2 p3 5 3 Vln. &4 œ œ œ œ 82 œ œœœ 4œ 3 œ 3Vœlnœ. &œœ4#œœœœ œœœœ82œœœœ4œœœœ#œ4œ3 2œœ >83œœœœ œ œ#5œœœœ œ‰ œ4œœ‰œ4œœ#œœ‰œ2 ‰2 pœ >8œ 5 8 ‰‰ 4 ‰ 5 ‰‰2 ‰ 4 p 3 8 ‰ 5 ‰ 4 3 Vln. &4 œ œ 8 œ œœ œ 4 Vœlnœ. &œ4 œ œ n8œœœ4œœ œœ4œ œœ#œ8œ œ œ œœ#nœ4œœ 4œ nœœ œ œ #œœ#8œ œ œ 8œœœ#4œœ nœ œ 4#œ œ œ 8œ œ 4 - -œ œ . œ. œ.-œ. n.œœ. œ.œ-. œœœ. œ.œœ.œ#œœœ œ. . .œœ.œ.œ.œ.œ. œ.œ. #œn.œœœ.œœ.œ. œnœœ.œœœ.œ.œœœ. œ#.œœ#œ.œœœ.œœ. œ.. .œ. œ. œ.œœ.œ.œœœ. œ.œœ.#œ.œœœ.œœ. nœœœ. œ.œ #œœ.œœ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ ten. ten. ten. ten. . œ. . œ. . œ. . œ. œ. . . œ. œ.. œ.œ. ,. œ.. œ.. œ.. ≥ œ. œœ.. œ. . œ. . .œ. . œ. . œ.œ. œ. . œ. ,. œ. ≥œ. œ. . œ. . œ. . œ. . œ. , ,, , ten. ten. ≤ , , ,, ,, , t,en. ten. ≤ , ,, , , , ≥, ≥ >. œ. . , , ≥, ≥ >. œ. . ° 5 j °≤ 2 p subito 5 5 j ≤ 2 m2f p su3bitpo 2 5 œ œ≥ 52 mf œ >2.pœ3 2 œ œ≥ 5 œ >2. œ °‰ j °‰ jp subito ≈ j ≈ ‰ ‰mf p sujbitop ≈œ œ≈ œ œ‰mf ‰ p œ œ œ œ Vln. & œ ‰ o o j o8 5 Vœln.œo& œœoœ‰ œo 4#œ2o o oj 8 85j œ5o œœ œ≈ œ ≈œ4o œ24#œ2 8oo‰ 3 œ‰ 4 28j 5 œ œ≈œ œ8≈4œ™52 ™œ œo4 8 ‰2 3 œ‰ 4 2 œ œ8 œ™5 ™œ œ 4 2 Vln. &œœ œœœ œœœ œœ œœoœ œ œo j 8œ Vœœoln.œœœœœ&œœœœœœoœœœœœœœ4œoœ#œ œœoœœœ™ œo œ œj œœ8œoœœ8œo œœœœœ.œœœœœœœoœœœœœ4œœœœœœ 4œœ#œoœœ œœœ8œ™ œœœœœœoœo4œœœ8œœœ œœ.œœœœœ œœ84œœœ œœœœœœœœœ4 8œœ œoœ œœ4 œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ 4 œ . œ œ œœœ œœ™ œœœ œœ œœœœ. œœ 1œ2œœœ.2œœœ.œ. œœœœœ œ œœœœœ™œœ œœœ™ œœœ œœ. œ.œœœœœœœœœ.œ.. œœœ œ.œ. œ.œ.œ .œœœ œ œœ3œ œœ™ œœœ .œœœœœ œ. . œ . œ. .œ .œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ4 ? 2 > >œ 3. œ 3œ œœ™>œ œ œ> ?œ 2. 1œ.œ2.œ2>œœœ.>3 œœ2..œœ œ3 œ œœœ™>5œœœ œ> œœ>.œ. . .œœ œ2.œ.œ2 >œ .œ. . . J. œ35œ œœ œ œœ >5. œ2œ . > . .. ..J3.>.. œ œ œ œ 5 4œ 3 Cb. 4poco sf ?82 4 3 >3Cb. >4° p.oco >s.f?82 .4 4 3 2 83 >5 5> Œ >. >4. poŒc4o sŒf. 2> ‰2 Œ2 8 ‰ J 55‰ Œ 8 >4 Œ‰ pŒo∑2co5 sf œ.2‰œ>. Œœ. 4.∑œ. 3 ‰œ œJ.32 ‰ 8 ‰ ∑55 4∑ 2 3 ¢25 Cpbo.co sf 4 8 4 ¢ 25 Cb. po∑co 4>sf 5 ∑ 8 4 ∑ 4 5 ∑8 ∑>>p5oco2 sf 4 ∑4 ∑ 58 ∑ . >>28‰poc4o œs>f œ œ. J 3 œ œ œ.42 ∑ ∑ >85 .∑ 2 4 25 ¢ Cl. & 25¢ ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 8 ∑ . ∑ 4 >> 5∑ ∑ 8#œ ∑ œ. #œ4. ‰ >>. œJ 8> œ 4 ∑ #œ .∑ œ 8 >œ∑ 4. °? 2 œo o 3œo o 3 œo o œo °oC?l. 2&œo °œoo oœo 32oœo o 3œo œoo o5œo 8oœo #oœ œo œo#œo 2o #œœoœ2œ.œ 4oœ#oœœœo œo >œo œo5 œoo o 8œo 5oœ#œoœ#œœœoo2œœ#oœ4œœœ. #œoœœoœœœ3ooœ œ.8œ œo 4o œo 5o œ œo #œ8o œ. œœo œ3o œ4 °?∑œ2 ∑œ 3 œ3∑ œœ ∑ ?œ∑ 2œ œ ∑œ œ32∑ œœ œ3∑ Œ œ 5 œœœ ∑ œœ œœ 2œ œ 2œ∑œ œ œœ œŒ œ∑œœ5 œ œœ œ5 œœœœ2p œœ œ 3 œ∑ œ œœ 5 œ œ œ 3 Bsn. 4 8œ ∑ 4œ ∑ œ Bsn∑. ¢ 4œ œ∑84œ∑ 4œ œ∑ ∑8œ œ ∑ Œ œœ 4 ∑œ4 œ œ ∑œ8 œ Œœ ∑ 8œ œ4 pœœ 4 œ œ∑ 8 œ œ 4 ¢?Bsnœ. ¢ œ 4 œœ œ 8œœ œ 4œ5 œ œ œœB?sn.œœ¢œ œœ4 œœ2œ œ œ œ84œœœœ œ 4œ œ5œœ5 8œœ œœœ œœœœ 2œœ œœ24œœ œ4œ3 œœœœ œœ2 œœ 58œœ œœœ œœœ œ582œœ œ4œ œœ œ2 œ3 œ œ4 œ2 œ œ œœ œ 8œ5 œ œ œ 2 œ 4 Cb. ? 8 5 Cb. ? 4 2 8 85 5p 4 24 2 8 3 4 28 p5 84 52 4 8 2 3 4 2 8 5 4 2 ¢Cb. ¢ 8 ¢Cb. ¢ 4 8 8 p 4 4 8 4 8 p 84 >. 4 8 4 8 4 ? ∑ ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ ∑ 2 ∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Œ ‰ œ. 3 œ œ œ. 2 œ ∑ 5 ∑ 2 Bsn. ¢? ∑ ∑ ∑ 58 ∑ ∑ 24 ∑ ∑ 58 ∑ 24 Œ ‰ J 38 œ œ 24 œ œ ∑ 58 ∑ 24 œ. . . œ. . œ. ..œ. . - . B>°sn. ¢> œ. . >. œ. . œ. ..œ. .#œ- . 8 #>œ > > #œ4 > 8 4 8 4 8 4 ° 2 °œ œ œ3. . œœ 3œ#œ. œœ #œ-œ #œ œ2œ#>œ°œœ œ> œ32. #>.œœœ>>œ3œ#œœ. œ>œ5##œ-œ œ œœ#>œœ#œ2> 2 >œ >œ #œ > 5 5 2 3 p 5 3 œ œ œ2œ œœœ œ3 œ œ3 #œœœVœln. œ&œ 4œ œ œ#œœ2œœœ8œœœœœœœ324 œœ>œœ3 œ œœ5#œœ œ œ ‰ œœ‰œ œ4#œ2 œ 2 œ >œ 8 5 ‰‰ 45‰ 2 p 3 8 ‰ 5 4 3 Vln. &4 œ8œ œœœ 4œ œ œ #œœVœln. &œ 4œ œ 4œ#œœœœ8 œœ œœœœ48 œ œ œ œœœœ œ 4œ œ ‰ œ‰œœ4œ œ œ œ œ8œœ œ 8 œ‰‰ 4œœœ‰œ 4 œ œ œ œ 8œ‰ œ œ 4 Vln. &4 8 œ -œ4 œ œ œ 4nœ. œ œ œ-œ œ.œœœ8œ. œ#œ œ œœœ œ œ œ4œ. #œnœœ.œœœœœœnœœn.œœ œ.œœ#œœ.œœ#œœœœœœœœ#œœ œ8œ œœ .œ œ#œœœœœœœ#œœnœ. 4œ œ œn#œœ œœœ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 34 - 34 6 j . . .nœ. œ œ.œ-. œ. œ œ .. 6.#œ œ œ œ . j œ ...>.#.œ.œ..œœ.œœ.nœœ. œ œ..œ.#œœ..œ.œ.œœ.œ.œ. œ.. œ. œ. œ. œ>..œ.œ œœ.œ.œ. . œ œ.œ. œ œ.œ≥. . . œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ 34 Solo 34 Sobœl6o,œ , ten. j ten. . . . . ≤. . . . b6œ>œ ., , j ..œ.b. œ.> .œ .œ. . .œb. œ.œ.œ œ.>œ. . œ...... œ.b.œ.> œ .œ., . , œb. œ.≥œ œ œ œ. . œ. . >...... ° œ œ. . Solo ° ° œ , œ , œ.t˙en..Soblœoteœn. œ œ ≤j . œ œ™ p,˙œ,bœ >œœ œ œ œ œœbœ. œ œ mœf ™œœbœ œœœpœ>œ œ œ ,œœb,œœ œ≥œ œœ œœbœ œ>œ.œœ. œ œ 3 ° œ œ œ. œ œ. . œ3° 5° œ œ J p3 subœiœto œ. œœ 5œ. ˙. œ 2j œ5 œœ mf2J 3 sœupbito5œp™ ˙ œ 52 œ œ œ œ œ2 œ m2f 5œ3™ œ p œ2 œ œœ≥ œœ 5œ 2œ. œ 2 œ Cl . &4 Ó 3 œ Cl. Vœ&lnœ..4 &œÓ 8‰ o œ3 5 oœ 4 œp oJsujbi3t58o œ œ. œ4oœœ 8 ∑œœ2œo œ524œ 4mf Jo8 J s3upbito j 584 ≈œ∑ ≈2 24 4Jo‰838 ‰ 2245 œ œ 58 œ™ 4œ œ 24 2 33 Cl. o &4 Ó o o Vlno. &Cl. ‰ &œ œ4oœÓ œo 8œœ oo œj 48 o œœ œ œ œo œ4œœœ œ84#∑oœ œo œ 4 oœjJ 8 œ œ≈œ œ≈4œ 4 œ∑œ œ œ œœ‰ 8 ‰ œo œ4J48œ œ œ 8 œ™ œ œ 4 4 œ œ œœo œ œœo œ œ œo œ œ œo œ œœœ. œœœ œœoœ œœœ™œ œ œo œœœœ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œœ œ œ™œoœœœœ œ œ. œ œ. œ. œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ p œ œ œ œ œ œ œ> œœœ. pœ œ œœœœœ™ œ œœœ œ œ>œœ œœ.œœ. œ. œœ. œœœ. œ. œpoco sf œsub. œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ. œ . . pœoc>œo. sœ.f sœu. bœ.. œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 2 œ 3œ 3 œœ p œ œ ? 2œ œ > 32œ œœœ 3 œ p œ5>œœ œ œ> . .œ œ. 2.œ> .2.œ Jœ pœoœ5co sf sub. œ œ5Œ> œ 2 Œ > ‰ 3J poco sf sub. œ ‰ œ5 ∑ 3 Cb. 4 ? 2 8 œ 34 3 œ Cb. œ 4 p?oco 2sœf 84 324 œ 38 5 œ Œ 4 >Œ 4 2p sim‰.2 8J œ5 ‰ 8> 45Œ ∑popco2 s simf Œ. 4 ‰ 3J 8 ‰ 5 ∑ 4 3 ¢25 Cb. 4 8 4 ¢ 25Cb. poco 4sf 5 584 4 8 . Œ> 54 Œ>54 ‰p sim. 8 ‰ . 8>>poco4 sf . ∑> p sim4. 8 > . 4 ° 25#œ¢œ œ #œ œ œ° #œ2œ5¢ o œ o o #œ œ oœ#œ #œœ œo #œ.œœ#œo>œ œ œ> o o #œ ##œœœoœ.œ#œœ#.œ.œœœ>œ#œ>œœ œo œ. œ> o o #œ œ.#œoœ. œ>œ œ o œ. ?°23? 2∑œ 3 #œ3∑œ œ 3 œ 3œ ∑ œ ? 3?#œ°2∑?œ 5œ2œo∑œ œ#2œ3œ œo23∑ œœ∑33 œ œo3 5œ∑Œ 5œ œo 2#œœœ œ5∑œoœœ2 œœ2 œo2 œœ23œ ∑œœo 5œ œ5 Œœo∑5 2 œ5 œo5 œ2œ 2œ œœœœo23 œ53 œ œo ∑ œ œo 5 œ5 œo œ œ œ2œo 3 3 Bsn. ¢ 4 ?∑83 Œ ∑4 Œ B∑sn.Bsn. ¢4 4 8œ?∑ 3œ∑48∑œ Œ5 œ4∑4Œœ∑ 8œ∑ 3 ∑Œœ 4 œ œ8 ∑4∑2œ ∑œ 45 4∑œ œ 8∑ ∑œ83œ ∑ Œ54∑ œ8 œ∑ 2 4 ∑ œ œ ∑ 4 8 œ œ 2∑ 5 œ∑œ 8 œ œ∑ œ œ4 4 2 B¢sn. ¢ Bs4n. 4 8 4 Œ Œ¢ Bsn.B?¢sn. œ4 œ4 œ 848œ œ∑4Œœ 485Œ œ œ ∑ œ œ4 œ4 82 ∑4œ œ∑ œ 4∑œ 8 85 ∑œ œ∑84œ 24 ∑œ ∑œ 43 ∑œ 428œ œ ∑œ 8œ 5 œ œ∑ œ 2 4 4 ¢ Cb. ? ¢ 58 p 24 58 p 24 38 24 58 24 Cb. ¢ 8 p 4 8 p 4 8 4 8 4 ≤ ≤ ° œ. . . œ. œ. . œ≥. - ≤ °> ≤ > œ. >. . œ. œ.≤≥.≤œ. - ≤ ≤ > > ≤ > ≤ ≤ ≤ ° °23 œ œ.° . 3.3œ. œ œ. 3. #œ.œ #≈œ- ≥#œ #œ °3#œ>œœ°2 œ5>°#œœœ.3>. 23.#œ. 5>œ#>œœœ. 33.>#œ.≈œœ#≥≤œ-5≤œ#3œ #œ2 #œ>œœ5 œ>2#œ2 >25##œœ >œ3#>œœ œ>≤#5œ≤ œ53 52œ#œ 5œ 2 2œ ##œœ œœ 23 5 2 5 œ#œ œ5 œ #œ œ 2 3 2 Vln. &4 œ2œ œ œ œ8 œ 3œ œ œ4œ 3 œœ œVœln#œ.Vœœln≈&. œ4&œœ4œœœ8œ2œœœœ#œœœ4œ8œ œœ2œ3œœœœœ4>œ4œœ 3œ œ8 œ5œœœ≈œ#œœ#4œœœœœ8œœ‰œœ4 œœ‰œ2#œœ4œ œ2œ4œœœ>œœ8#œœœ8œœ œœ5œ#œ4 œ 8 ‰œ5‰ œ4#œ‰2œ œ 4œœ #8#œ3œœœœœ œ 8œ ‰œ5#œ œ œ4 #4œ œ3 Vln. &Vœl4n. œ &œœœ4œœ8 œ œ œ œ4 œœ œœVœln.Vœœœln&. œ4&œœ4œ œœœ848 œœœœœœœœ4œœœœœ4œ8 œ œœœœœœ œœœœœœœœ4‰ œ4 œ‰8œœœ4œ œ œœœœœœœœ4 œœ8œœ 8œœœœœœœœ 8œ4‰œœ‰ 4œœ‰œœ œ 4 œœ 4œ 8 œœ œœ œœ 8œ‰ œœ œœ œ 4 4 œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œnœœ œ-œnœœœnœœ œ. œnœ. œœœ.. œœ œ. œœ. œ.œœœœ.œœœœnœœnœœ. œnœœnœœnœœœ-œnœœœ.nœœnœ.œœœœn.œœ.#œœœœ.œœ.#œœnœœœœœ.œœ.œœ. œœœ.œœœœœ.>œ#œœnœœnœ#nœœœ.œœœnœnœœœ.œœœœœnœœnnœnœ.œœœ#œœœœœœœ.#œœœ#.œnœœœnœ#.œœœnœœœœ. œœœœ.œœœœœœœœœ>œœnœœ.œœn#œœœœœ#œœœœœnœœ.œnœœnœnœœœ#œœ œ#œœœnœ nœ œœœœ œœœœnœœœœ œœœ œ œ . . . . œ. . œ . œ . œ - . . œ .. 6. œ. .. œ. . œ. . œ. .œœ.. ..œ.œœœ œ -. ...œ œ..œ ... ..œœ6œ.œ.œ.œ. . .œœ.. . œ.jœœ.. œ .. œ..œœ..>œ. .œ..œ.œ.œ.œ. œ.œœ.œ.. œ œ..œ.œ.œ..œ..œœ..œ..œœ..œ..œœœ.œ.œœœ. >.œ œ œ. .. .œ œœœ . .œ œ œ . . .œ .œ .œ .œ .œ. .œ œ œ 34 S.olo . . . 34 . . 6. Sjo.lo ...... p...... 6. bœ.. . . >j. . .. . b.pœ...... œb.œ. . .œ. œ... ..œ... ..>. . . bœ. .œ . . .œbœ œ. œ. . . œ. . . . . 34 S.olo. ° 34 bœ œ œ ˙S.jolo. œ œ . p po>co™ pœiù fortebœ˙œ œ >œ œ œ œ œbœœ .pœ œ œpobcœo>œ pœi™ù fœortœe œ œ. œ >œ œ œbœœ œœ œ œbœ œ œ œ œ ° œ œ . . . 3 ° œ œ p psoubcbœoi tpoœiù fœo.rte ˙.œ . œ œ 5 œ mœf œ po3cpo p>siuù™b œfioptrootceo piœù˙ forte œ œ2œ œ œ œ œ œ mf œ œ>œpœp™oc5o più foœrte œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 2œ œ 3 Ó° œ œ œ œœ . œ Ó 5 œ3 J œ3 pœsubœito œ œ . œ2 ∑ 5 œ mJf œ Jœ 5p ps3ubito 2∑ mf2 J p 5 2 Cl. &4 o3 Ó o œ o œCœl. œ&o 4 œ8 o oÓ 5 œ o 4 oJ 3 o pocoœ spuiùb. fo4rteo œ82 o ∑ 4o J8o Jpoco5 psuiùb .forte4 ∑ 4 o 8 2 J 4 Cl. œ &œ4 œo œ œ œo œ œ œoœ œ Clœ.oœœ&4œœ 8œoœoœœ œ œoœ œ 4œo œ œoœ œ œoœ4sub. œ8 œo œ œ œo 4 œoœ 8 œ su4b. œ œo4 œ8 4 œ œ œ œ pœ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœœœ œ œ œp œœœ œ œ œœœ œœœ œ œœ pœoco sf suœbœ. œ œ œœ œœ poco sf sub. œ œœ ? 2 œ 3 œ œ3 p œ œ œ ?œ 2 œ œœ23 œ œ œ3 œp œ5 œ œœ œœ œ2 œ2 œJpoco œsf su5b.œ œ œ 5 œ 2 3 pJoco sf sub. œ œ 5 3 Cb. ? 43? 2 8 3 4 3 Cb?. 3 4?52 48 23 34 3 8 5 2 Œ 5 4 Œ 2 4 p 2‰3 5J 8 5 2‰ 8 Œ 5 4 ∑Œ 2 p sim.‰42 53 J ‰ 8 5 ∑ 2 4 3 ¢ ? 3∑ ∑ ¢ 25 ? 3∑ ∑ 5 ∑ 3∑ Œ∑ 2 ∑ Œ5 5 sim.∑ ‰ ∑ 3 ∑ 5 ‰ ∑ 2Œ . ∑ >∑Œ ∑ >p‰ sim. 2∑ 5 ‰ ∑ > ∑ . 2 Cb. Cb. ¢4 4 8 ∑4 Cb. C4b.25¢ ∑84 48 4∑ ∑4 8 4 ∑ ∑8 4 5∑44 ∑p sim8. ∑ 8 4 ∑ #œ ∑8 œ. #4>œœ∑ 4>œ∑ 84 ∑ ∑ #8œ . >œ 4∑œ. 4 ¢ #œCbœ. œ¢ œ4 œ #œ œ œ¢ œ °?œC#bœ.2œ¢œ #4œ œ38 3 #œ4œ œ #œ œ 4 8 2 4 5 8 #œ œ4 œ 2#œœœ œ œ 4 8 5#œ œ. œ œ œ 3 4 ? 3 #œ œ œ œ œ B#snœ?. œ3?œ 24œ5 œ∑ œ œ38 Œœ∑3œ 34Œ ∑ 2 œ œ œ5∑ œ ∑ 24 3 ∑ 5 ∑ 58 Œ 2 ∑ 24 ∑2 5 ∑ ∑ 58 ∑ 2 34 Bsn. 4 ? 3 Œ Œ Bsn.Bsn. ¢4 4?8 3 ∑ 5∑ 8 ∑4 4Œ 3 ∑Œ∑ 4 82∑ 5 4 ∑∑4 ∑ 8 3 85Œ∑ ∑ 4 2 4∑ ∑ 4 8∑2 5 ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 4 4 2 ¢ Bsn. 4 Œ Œ ¢ B¢sn. 4 8 ∑ 4 ∑ 4 8∑ ∑4 8 ∑ 4 ∑ 4 8 4 ¢ ¢ p p ≤ ≥ ≤ ° ° œ. . . œ. ≤ œ.≥≤ . œ. #œ- ≤ ≤ ≤ #>œ ≤ > > ≤ #≤œ > ≤ ° 3 ° ≥ ≤ °3 °25œ œ. œ. œ 3 œ œ. 3œ ≤3#≥≤≈œ-#œ œ #œœ 2#>œ œ>œ5œœ#>œœ #2œ#œ >3>œ≤ œ5≤ #œ œ5 2#œ ‰ 2#œ‰#œ œ 2 5 œ#œ œ 5 ‰ œ #œ œ 2 3 Vln. &4 3 œ ≈ œ Vlnœ.Vln&. 4&248œœ3œ œœ5œœ38 œœœœ4œ œ34 œœ œ3 œœ œ≈#œ#œœœ4œ œœœ82œœœ#œœœ5œ 2œ4 œ >œœ4œ#œ 8 3 œ58œ5œ#œ œœ4 œ 2œ#œ ‰œ24 ‰ œ #œ4#œ 8œ œ2 œ 5œ œ58œ#œ‰ œ œ #œ4 œ34 2 Vln. œ &œ4 œ œ œ œ ≈ œVlnœ. Vln&œ. œ4&œœ4 œ 8 œœ8œœœœnœœœ œ4œœnœœ4 œœ œ œ œœœœœœ œœ4 œ œ8œœ4œ œ œœnœnœœ œ4 œ8nœ8œœ œœœœœœœ#œœœœœ4 œ œœ4œœœ œœœœn#œœ œ œ4nœ n8œœœ #œœœ œœ œn8œ œœ œœ œ œ 4 4 œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œnœœ œnnœ œœœ nœ. œ œ. œ œ. œ. œ œ.œ.œœœ.œœœœ.œœ œœ œœnœ œœnœ nœœ-œœœnœnœ. œœœn.œœœ.œ.œœœ.œœœ œ.œœ œ. œœœœ œnœ œnœ. œœnœ. nœœnœœ.œœœœ. nœn.œœ#.œœœœœ.œnœœœœœ. œœœ.nœœ œ>œ.œœ.œ#œœœœœœnœœnœ. œ œ. œ#œœnœ œ œœ œ œ.œœnœœ. œ œœ. œ œ. œ œ 34 . . . œ. . œ. . œ . œ . œ34. . œ. .6. œ ...œ. œ. .. œ.œj . œ . œ - . œ . ..œ. ..œ6. .œ.œ. œ. .>œ j. œ >œ. œ. . œ. . œœ. . .œ œ.. œ.. œ. . œ. . œ. .. œ >>œ. œ. . œ. . œœ. œ. œ. . œ. . œ. . œ. .. œ. 34 . S. olo . . 3.4 . 6. . bœ.. Sœol.oj . p. . . . .6 . >.bœ œ. j> .> .œbœp .œ. œ œ. b.œ.œ œ.œ œ.>œ. . . . > œ.bœ. œ œ . . œbœ œ. œ œ. œ . œ . . ° œSolo . . ° bœœSœo˙lo . . œ œ . p poœco™ più> fobrœteœpœ˙ œ œœ bœœ œ.pœ œ œbœ œpœomcoœœ fpi™œù fo>rteœœ p œ œœ bœ œ œ œ œbœ œ œœœ œ œ °3 œ œœœ . . œ °3 5 œ œ œ3 œœœ˙ . . œ œ 2œ 5 œ œ œ™p3poocpoco p p5isùiuù bœf oiftoro˙trete œ œœ 2œ œ œ mf 2œœp™oco piùp5 foœrte œ œ œ œ 2œ Ó3 œ œ œ . œ œ Ó3 5 oœ œJ opocœo 3più fortœe œo . œ œ o2 ∑ 5 œo œJ J su3biotop5oco più forte 2 ∑ J2o 5 2 Cl. &4 Ó œ Cl. &œ4 8 Ó œo 4œoJ poco œpoiùœ forstueb. 4 œo œ 8 ∑ œo 4J 8Jœo sub. 4 ∑ 4 œo 8J 4 Cl. &4 Cl. &4œ 8œ œ œ 4 œ œ œ œ4sub. œ 8 œ œ 4œ 8 œ su4b. 4œ 8 œ 4 p œ œ œ pœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ p ? 2 œ œ 3 œ p3 œ œ œ œ œ œ p2ocoœ sf sub. œ 5 œ œ 2 poco sf sub. J œ œ 5 3 Cb. ? 24 œ 38 34 œ œ œ 24 œpoco sf sub. 58 œ Œ 24 Œ p‰oco sfJ sub. œ ‰ 58 ∑ 34 ? 3 Cb?. ¢3 45 ∑ 8 3 4 ∑ 2 5 ∑ p4 sim. 3 5 ∑ 8 2 Œ∑ 4 Œ p sim∑2. ‰ 5 ∑ ‰ 8 ∑ ∑ 2 4 Cb. 4 ? 3 ∑ C∑b. ¢4 ?8 3 5∑ ∑ 4 3 ∑ 4 ∑ 82∑ 5 p∑∑ 4sim. 8 3 5∑ ∑ 4 2 ∑ ∑ 4p sim.8∑2 5 ∑ ∑ 4 2 ¢ Cb#. œ 4 ∑ #œ ¢ C∑b. #œ 4 8 ∑ 4 #œ ∑ 4 8∑ ∑4 8 ∑ 4 ∑ 4 8 4 ? 3 ¢œ#œœ œœœ œœ œ œ#œœ œœœ?œœ3¢5œœ#œœ œœœ œœ œ3 œ#œœ œ2œœ œœ 5œ 3 5 2 2 5 2 Bsn. 4? 3 Œ Œ Œ Œ Bsn. 4?83 5 ∑ ∑ Œ 4 Œ 3Œ Œ∑ ∑ 4 2 ∑8 ∑5 ∑ ∑∑ 4∑ 83 5 ∑ ∑∑ ∑ 4 2 ∑ ∑∑ ∑ 4∑ 2∑ 8 5 ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 4 2 B¢sn. ¢ 4 B¢sn. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 8 4 4 8 4

≥ ≤ ≤ ≤≥ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ° °3 ≥ ≤ ° °3 5 ≤3≤≥ #œ ≤ 2 5 #œ ≤3≤ 5 #œ #2œ #œ #œ 2 5 #œ #œ 2 Vln. &4 3 œ ≈ œ Vœln. &4 83œ5 œ œ œ 4œœ3œ≈ œœ#œœ œœ 4 2 8 œ5 œ œ œ#œœœ4œœ83œ 5œœ#œœœ œœ 4 #œ2œ œ œ #œœ œ#4œœ œ2 8 5œ œ œ #œœ œ œ #œœ 4 2 Vln. &œ4 œ œ œ œœ ≈ œ Vœœln. œ &œ4 œ8 œœ œœ œ œ œ 4œœœœœœ≈ œœ œ œœœœ4œœ œ 8œ œ œœœœœ œœœœ4œœœœ8œœ œœœœ œœœœ4 œ œ œœœ œœœ œœ œœ œ4œ œœ8 œ œ œœ œœ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ 4 œ. œ œ.œœ œ.œœ œ.œœ œœnœœnœ nœ œnœœ œœ. œ œ.œœ œ.œœœ.œœœ.œ.œœœœœœ.œœœœœ.œœœœœnœnœœnœnœnœœœnœnœœœœœnœœ. œœœ.œœ.œœœ.œœ.œœœœœ.œœ.œœœ.œœœ œœ>œœœœnœœœœnœœ œnœœœœnœnœœœnœœnœ œœœ. œnœ.œœnœ.œœ œ.œœœ œ>œ œnœœœœnœ œœ œnœœnœ œ œnœœnœ œ œ œ . . .œ . .œ . .œ . œ œ. . .œ34. .œ . .œ .. .œ. .œ.œ . .œ Sœ.oœlo œ. œ. .œ. . ..œ.œ. .œ6.œ.. .œœ. œ >j œ œ œ . . .œ . .œ . .œ . œ > > œ œ œ ...... 34 ...... Sol.o . p . . . 6. . . . . bœj œ p . . . . .>™ > œbœ œ œ œbœ œ œ œ œ œ. ° œ œ. . . p pocœo pibùœ foœrte ˙ œ œ. p poco >œpiù™ forte œ œ œbœ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ ° 3 Ó œpocoœ più fœortœe œ. œ œ 5 œ œ pocoJ pipùo3 cfoor pteiù forte 2 ∑ œpoco più foJrte 5 œ 2 Cl. &4 Ó poco più œforte sub. œ 8 J 4 poco più forte sub. 4 ∑ J 8 4 Cl. &4 sub. 8 4 su4b. 8 4 p poco sf sub. p poco sf sub. ? 3 ? 3 5 3 2 5 3 5 2 p s2im. 5 2 Cb. 4? 3 ∑ ∑Cb. 4?83 5 ∑∑ 4 3 ∑ ∑ 4 2 ∑8 5 ∑ ∑ 4 83 5 ∑ ∑ 4 2 ∑ ∑ p s4∑im. 2 8 5 ∑ ∑ 4 2 ¢Cb. 4 ∑ ∑¢Cb. #4œ 8 ∑∑ 4 #∑œ ∑ 4 ∑8 ∑ ∑ 4 8 ∑ ∑ 4 ∑ ∑ 4∑ 8 ∑ ∑ 4 ¢ ?¢ 3#œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ 5 3 2 5 2 Bsn. ? 34 Œ Œ 58 ∑ 34 ∑ 24 ∑ ∑ 58 ∑ ∑ 24 Bsn. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4

≥ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ° 3 ≥ ≤ 5 ≤ ≤ 3 #œ 2 #œ 5 #œ #œ 2 Vln. &34 œ ≈ œ œ 58 œ œ œ œ œ 34 œ œ#œ œ œ œ 24 #œ œ œ œ 58 œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ #œ œ 24 Vln. &4 œ œ œ œ œnœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ 8 œ œ œ œ œ 4nœ œ œ œnœ œ 4 œ œ œ œ œ œnœ œ 8 œ œ nœ œ œ œnœ œ œ œ 4 œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œnœ œ nœ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ œ nœ œ œnœ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. > œnœ œ œ œnœ œ œnœ œ œ ...... p ...... > p poco più forte poco più forte poco più forte poco più forte sub. sub. ? 3 5 3 2 5 2 Cb. ? 34 ∑ ∑ 58 ∑ 34 ∑ 24 ∑ ∑ 58 ∑ ∑ 24 Cb. ¢ 4 8 4 4 8 4 Upon completion of the shift, the violin continuously repeats the motive for four measures, unabated, until stopping abruptly just two measures shy of the end of the movement. The veneer of discontinuity is ultimately thwarted upon an examination of the return of the opening motives, and as a result of the variants within the violin superimpositions, the piece is allowed to finally come to an end.

As shown in the block analysis of Example 1.1, the first section of “Airs” begins with G-centered thematic material over a bass ostinato that engages in a static shift and is interrupted before a new theme is offered. At rehearsal 5 the new theme, embracing a different tonal center of A, cycles through an A-B-C#-D tetrachord as the bass ostinato halts and motives from the first theme resound below it. The tetrachord is subsequently developed in a new section as a primarily stepwise entity and progresses until thematic recurrences of the second theme curtail its progress. The original theme and bass ostinato return at rehearsal 13, completing the static shift as a means of closure, and even continues sounding the theme as a “pseudo-coda” in the last seven measures.

Could we dare call this sonata form? Stravinsky’s neoclassicism was in full-force during the completion of Histoire, and if the paradoxical tenets of the neoclassical aesthetic ring true, the composer would have been observing the past as he eyed the future. If not sonata form, the piece could be viewed as an echo of the binary or ternary structures of the past. Regardless, the formulaic conventions of Stravinsky’s repetitions permeate the composition and cohesion is established through the structural markers of the reiterations. This “active stasis” engenders a greater sense of unity through sections

34 of his works and ultimately grants the composer alternative means to development material.

35 CHAPTER 3: CONNECTIONS TO THE STORY AND OTHER STRAVINSKY WORKS

The implications of stasis are far reaching and can be viewed as a compositional aesthetic that is demonstrative of the Soldier’s actions; the repetitive nature of the thematic material is a possible allegory for the futile efforts of the Soldier after making his deal with the Devil. Focusing on the initial encounter (“Airs”) and the final meeting between the two characters (“Grand Choral”), a connection between what the Soldier assumed and the reality around him offers another reading of the music as it relates to the narrative.

The “Airs” section of Histoire, where the Soldier first encounters the Devil, begins and ends with the same repetitive material. In this part of the story, the Soldier rests by a stream to take a break from his journey home after war. He removes a fiddle from his backpack and begins to play as the Devil listens from afar. As the movement ends, the Devil approaches the Soldier and convinces him to trade his violin for a book of untold riches. However part of the deal rests on the Soldier spending three days with the

Devil in order to teach him to play the violin. When the Soldier protests that this would delay his arrival to see his mother and girlfriend, the Devil offers him food and housing, reiterating that a mere three days would go unnoticed compared to the time he spent in battle. The Soldier gives in to the Devil’s charms and after three days, he sets out to continue his journey home. Upon arriving in his town, he sees his neighbors but is confused when they do not respond to his greetings. Brushing off the strangeness of the public encounters, he goes to his mother, but after seeing him, she runs away, petrified by

36 the sight of her son. The Soldier finally tries to locate his fiancé only to find she has married another man and has two children. The Soldier finally realizes that the Devil has kept him for three years instead of three days.

The Soldier’s predicament mirrors the static nature of the music. His three days are nothing compared to the three years that have passed, and although his time spent with the Devil contained a sinister proportionality to the surrounding environment, he still progressed alongside it. The Soldier remains physically unchanged compared to his family’s aging and his relative stasis embodies the tragedy of his alienation. Yet, he is still aware of the repercussions of his dalliances with the Devil; his development is realized through his unchanged time moving adjacent to the continuing time of the world around him. Just as the themes recur over an ostinato with little to no changes in the score, so too does the Soldier persist unaffected (as an individual), but transformed by his existence amongst his surroundings. When this interaction between events returns in the

“Grand Chorale,” the connection of the music to the plot are just as potent as in “Airs.”

However, before delving into the formulaic comparisons between the two sections of

Histoire, I offer commentary on another Stravinsky work that proposes a connection between both movements.

Stravinsky’s turn to the “infantile” tendency of using repetitive structures as a means of development would also reveal itself in his 1921 composition, Les cinq doigts.36

36 The completion of these pieces may have been influenced by Debussy’s Children’s Suite (1908).

37 This work, comprised of eight miniature movements, was akin to his previous piano composition, “Five Easy Pieces,” and featured a recurring thematic fragment as its primary vehicle for development. For the purposes of this discussion, my analysis of this work (shown in Example 1.8) as it compares to Histoire and other Stravinsky works will be limited to the sixth movement of Les cinq doigts, “Lento.”

38 Example 1.8: Stravinsky, “Lento,” Les cinq doigts (1921) © 1922 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany.

° b3 & 4 œ œ œ œ#œ #˙ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? 3 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ- ¢ b4 œ œ œ œ

°6 b œ œ œ œ œ œ & œ œ œ œ#œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œœœ œ œ œœ œ œ > ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b j‰ j‰ j‰ j‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ¢ œ. œ. œ. œ.

°11 b œ œ œ œ œ œ & œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ¢ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ

°15 b œ & #˙ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ ˙™ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙™ ¢ b œ œ œ

39 As with all of the movements in the set, the principal theme of “Lento” begins the first section and is contained within a five-note set encompassing a perfect fifth, D-E-F#-

G-A. The melodic and rhythmic components of the theme bear a remarkable likeness to the thematic designs of “Airs” and the first of Three Pieces, analyzed earlier in this paper.

Although it is formed from a five-note set, most of the movement is within a tetrachord with the uppermost note (5th) acting as an intermediary amongst soundings of the thematic repetitions. Stravinsky’s fascination with the folk melody Perepyolushka continues to make its way into his compositions not only as a source, but also as a medium.37 The bass begins by sounding a descending D minor triad, a tonal realm that contradicts the primary theme’s F♯. The F-natural and F♯ never fall on the same beat, however its effect is unwaveringly prominent. The bass repeats itself for 5 measures

th th before a series of descending 9 and 7 intervals to G2 offer a temporary reprieve for two measures only to have the descending triad enter for a final time before the B section commences.

At the beginning of the second section, the second theme uses a similar harmonic structure a minor third higher on the notes F-G-A-B♭-C. Now the uppermost note of the five-note set, C, is used conspicuously, both as part of the opening gesture of the transposed theme, and as part of the downward gesture to the F. The bass voice oscillates between D4 and a harmonic tritone on E3-B♭3 that would seem to crash against the F major theme if it were not for that specific tritone’s tendency to resolve inward to an F-A

37 Richard Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions: A Biography of the Works Through Mavra, vol. 1 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 1444.

40 tonic dyad. By sounding a tritone and its consequential tonic resolution, Stravinsky again adds a feeling of stasis not only through the repetitiveness of the melody, but also through the harmonic motion of the piece. The D minor/D major clash in the A sections brings the (4-17) [0347] set class to mind, as Stravinsky frequently exploited the tonal uncertainty of the major/minor tonal opposition in his compositions. The final section is simply a return to the opening section, unchanged, save for the duration of the last notes being extended to three and a half beats.

The undercurrent of harmonic ambiguity makes its way into the “Grand Chorale” of Histoire just after the moral of the tale is spoken by the narrator. Example 1.9 shows the rotation of the two chords through the two and a half measure progression. Although they are not presented or functioning in a traditional tonal context, the chords’ constituents are evident when built using tertian structure.

Example 1.9, “Grand Chorale,” Histoire mm. 18-20 © 1987 & 1992 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany. bœ ° 4 ˙- ˙- œ œ ˙ Clarinet in A &4 œ œ œ #œ #˙ ? 4#œ œ #œ œ #œ #œ nœ #œ nœ #œ Bassoon ¢ 4

° 4 œ #œ ˙ nw Trumpet in A &4 œ œ bœ nœ ? 4 Trombone 4 #œ ˙ ¢ ˙ œ #œ œ #˙ n˙

Reduction ° 4 ˙ ˙ œ#œ nœ #˙ &4 œ #œ œ #œ œ # œ #˙ 4 œ #œ œ #œ #œ ? 4#œ # œ ˙ ¢ ˙ œ #œ nœ

The sequence progresses with alternating 9th and split-3rd chords, and although the harmonic movement implies direction, it still produces a level of harmonic stasis through the chordal repetitions. The Soldier, excited about the prospects of returning home to meet with the princess by his side, has his hopes dashed by the devil once again in the exact fashion as the beginning of the tale. The narration details his futile efforts in escaping his fate:

They’re on their way, they’re nearly there, A scent he knows hangs in the air. He has gone on ahead to find The frontier. She is a little way behind.

He calls her, he turns back, then changes his mind…

The soldier hangs his head. He begins to follow the Devil, very slowly, but without resisting. A voice calls from the wings. He stops for a moment. The Devil waves.38

38 Histoire du soldat © 1987 & 1992 Chester Music Limited, 14-15 Berners Street, London W1T 3LJ, United Kingdom, worldwide rights except the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and all so-called reversionary territories where the copyright © 1996 is held jointly by Chester Music Limited and Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Mainz, Germany. Reproduced with the kind permission of the publisher.

42 The Soldier finds himself in the same position as he did during “Airs;” just as he thinks he has finally conquered the ills that have plagued him since his initial encounter with the Devil, he comes to realize that he is ultimately consigned to repeating events and ending up back where he started. Stravinsky would return to this gesture two years later in Symphonies of Wind Instruments (1920), another of his compositions that uses block form and repetition as a source of development.39 The chorale-like progression that enters in measures 11-12 have the exact same rotating chord structure of alternating split- third and 9th chords.

Example 1.10, Symphonies of Wind Instruments, mm. 11-12 - bœ ° 3 bœ- œ œ bœ Oboe &4 œ œ 3 œ- nœ Cor Anglais ¢&4 #-œ nœ

° 3 - œ- bœ Horn in F &4 bœ bœ 3 Horn in F &4 b-œ b-œ nœ bœ 3 Horn in F &4 -œ -˙ œ ? 3 Tuba 4 ¢ b-œ b-œ nœ bœ

39 Jonathan Cross notes that the interaction amongst the segments that contribute to the mosaic like configuration of Symphonies “operates horizontally (successively) rather than vertically (simultaneously),” as opposed to the superimpositions I have alluded to within other works. Jonathan Cross, The Stravinsky Legacy, (New York: Cambridge University, 1998), 34.

43 Reduction: ° 3 &4 œ nœœ bœ œ bbœ b ˙œ nbœ bœ ? 3 ¢ 4 bœ bœ nœ bœ

In the above example, the rotations show that the harmonic indistinctness of the split-third chord’s interaction with the internal repetitions of the 9th chords smaller within a particular block. This chordal movement is part of the overall static effect lamented by

Stravinsky’s detractors and the aural ambiguity could lead one to a conclusion that produces thoughts of instability and nondevelopmental sequences. Yet, it is exactly this repetitive motion that contributes to the continuity: the shifting of blocks in Symphonies allows the material to connect on a larger scale while the repetitions in the “Grand

Chorale’s” personify an equivalent spirit, albeit with more programmatic connotations.

Referring to connective elements that contribute to temporal obscurity, Christopher Hasty remarks that

We are accustomed to thinking of a continuous change as one involving no internal articulation, no discrete stages. . . . But when we begin thinking of the complex connections of apparently discrete units, connections that give rise to melody, phrase . . . the mark of continuity does not reside in the absence of internal articulation, but in the unification of events.40

40 Hasty, “On the Problem of Succession,” 58-59.

44 Hasty’s discussion is largely concerned with the role of internal discontinuities as they relate to an overarching, structural goal. Viewed as individual entities, he argues that events in time can present themselves as disconnected, but when examined as a whole, their function becomes more apparent. Hasty also discusses the role of continuity and succession as events in time, arguing that

Time is neither a substance independent from events, nor itself a change or process. It is rather a form of relationship between events. And this relationship or order is expressed in the terms before and after. But the apprehension of difference, far from separating discrete events requires that we bring events together into a relation, otherwise we could not be aware of the difference.41

It is this viewpoint that grounds an alternative approach to viewing Stravinsky’s discontinuities not as incoherent ramblings, but as a new way to view development as

“active stasis.”

41 Ibid., 60.

45 CONCLUSION

Stravinsky’s search for an identity apart from his predecessors mirrored Russia’s plight in its struggle to establish itself as a nation with its own artistic culture at the turn of the century. His Janus-faced gazes to the past and future were simultaneously nostalgic and prophetical, and his music emulated the changing character of his inner- most self along with the shifting musical epochs in which he composed. Although he would not resign himself to repeating the efforts of common practice, Stravinsky realized that he could tap into some of the greatest conventions of repetition from his predecessors while creating an entirely new experience free from the strident rules of the same period.

Arnold Schoenberg, a pedagogue who frequently commented on compositional aesthetic, gives differing opinions about the merits of repetition. Although the composer primarily concerns himself with espousing his beliefs in the avoidance of repetition,

Schoenberg provides commentary on repetition and the monotonous tendencies of utilizing it too often, saying “[t]oo many repetitions of tones or melodic figures are annoying, if they do not exploit the advantage of a repetition—emphasis.”42 (Italics mine.) In the case of Stravinsky’s music, his repetitions, though seemingly dull as compared to the varied systems of his earlier music and earlier periods, function on a larger level of organization and form building motions. The importance of themes and motives do not gain significance through variation, rather, it is through a continuous

42 Arnold Schoenberg, Fundamentals of Musical Composition (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1967), 116. He also acknowledges that while literal repetition can be monotonous, too much variation can cause musical elements to become disconnected (20).

46 sounding of unchanged blocks or lines and their resultant positions throughout the work that gives them true meaning.

The primary purposes of this paper were twofold: to address the façade of discontinuity present in Histoire du soldat and other related works, and to offer an alternate reading of the musical structures as they unfolded throughout the composition.

In detailing some of the approaches to Stravinsky’s repetitive structures, I show a variated narrative that speaks to the nature of his compositional process and the different analytical tools used to illuminate (or discredit) the superficial disjunction amongst thematic elements. Through my analysis of selected movements within Histoire and comparative works, I established a connective thread that showed both allusion and structural cohesion through literal repetition. My theory of a “static shift” reveals a deeper understanding of the supposedly meaningless juxtapositions of repeated fragments and offers an alternative lens through which works of a comparable nature can be analyzed. As themes and motives recur throughout Histoire, the possibility of Stravinsky utilizing this technique in an effort to bridge sections is very high. Additionally, this analytical approach has explicit implications for many other 20th-century composers who use repetition as a primary vehicle for formal development.

An alternate reading of Stravinsky’s perceived discontinuities may point to the repetitive aspects of his compositions as calculated efforts to establish a new way of experiencing linear intransience. The possibility of the spasmodic characteristics of the composer’s juxtapositions serving as intentional protests against the outmoded models of

47 the past are not without instance, at least when viewed within a broader musical framework. For example, as it pertains to harmony, we can look to the evolved perception of dissonance within tonal systems based on tertian structures where a work can end on a 9th chord or a suspension can proceed to another harmony without resolution. Just as dissonance can be accepted as consonance without a change in meaning, repetition and interruption could conceivably engender the same response with regard to developmental continuity if any discourse of aesthetics are allowed to run their course.

When theorists speak about “deviations” or “deformations” of tried and true formulaic ideas, it is as if these were truths to be regarded as the highest and most revered practices, and to break away from the models used by musical giants is almost certainly considered treasonous and rebellious. However, why is it that these explorations into the unknown are seldom deemed evolutionary as opposed to the customary labels of being eccentric or abhorrent until a lifetime after the composer’s death? Perhaps this answer lies in our own understanding of what art is supposed to personally communicate and our steadfast desire as human beings to condemn risk that does not offer any immediate cognitive recompense. Stravinsky, by most accounts, was a risk taker, albeit a very calculated one. His compositional process, as seen through various sketch studies, often reveals a man who can see the end in the beginning, and any attempt to drudge a new path was crafted unlike anyone before or since.

48 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, Theodore. Philosophy of Modern Music. New York: The Seabury Press, 1973.

Bell, Clive. Old Friends. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1957.

Boulez, Pierre. Stocktackings from an Apprenticeship, trans. Stephen Walsh. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Burkhart, Charles. “Schenker’s Motivic Parallelisms,” Journal of Music Theory 22 (1978): 145-175.

Carr, Maureen A. After the Rite. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Campbell, Edward. Boulez, Music, and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Cone, Edward T. “Stravinsky: The Progress of a Method.” Perspectives of New Music 1 (1962): 18-26.

Cross, Jonathan. The Stravinsky Legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Hasty, Christopher. “On the Problem of Succession and Continuity in Twentieth-Century Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 8 (1986): 58-74.

Horlacher, Gretchen. Building Blocks. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Kramer, Jonathan. “Discontinuity and Proportion in the Music of Stravinsky.” In Confronting Stravinsky: Man, Musician, and Modernist, edited by Jann Pasler, 174-94. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1986.

Margulis, Lisa. On Repeat. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 43.

Stravinsky, Igor. An Autobiography. New York: W.W. Norton, 1962, reissued 1998.

Stravinsky, Igor, and Robert Craft. Dialogues. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982.

______. Dialogues and a Diary. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1963.

______. Memories and Commentaries. London: Faber and Faber, 2002.

______. Conversations with Igor Stravinsky. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1959.

Taruskin, Richard. Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions: A Biography of the Works

49 Through Mavra, 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996 van den Toorn, Pieter C., The Music of Igor Stravinsky. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1983.

______. Stravinsky and The Rite of Spring. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987. van den Toorn, Pieter C., and John McGuiness, Stravinsky and the Russian Period. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Watkins, Glenn. Pyramids at the Louvre. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap University Press, 1994.