STRAVINSKY NOW
331
delighted by the Classical Symphony
of
Prokofiev, which, to that com–
poser himself, is only a kind of joke.
This is not the proper place for a very detailed technical analysis
of Stravinsky's latest works. Let me here state only a few significant
characteristics of these works by way of illustrating the points I was
making.
As
I have said, sometime in the twenties Stravinsky ceased using
Russian themes
in
his
music. At that time very few people understood
the rea<>on for this change. Yet, in the light of what has been said,
the reason was quite consistent with Stravinsky's character. In part,
he must have discovered that these materials were not sufficiently
adaptable to the tradition; but, chiefly, he must have observed that
he, himself, had well-nigh exhausted them. He has used Russian
themes
in
all his major works, deriving them from all kinds of sources.
What more was there to do, unless he wished to repeat himself over
and over again as did (and still do) so many composers of the nation–
alist schools. This, to Stravinsky, was obviously an unacceptable pros–
pect and he abandoned the use of "Russian themes" for good.
It is for this that he was most severely criticized. The general
view of a Russian and what was expected from a Russian embraced,
as Stravinsky once put it, "troika, vodka, isba, balalaika, boyar,
samovar, nitchevo and even bolshevism."
If
a Russian refused to live
up to these expectations, something obviously was the matter with
him; he was uprooted
1
he refused to be a Russian, in short, he was a
lost man. I am sure that much of the resentment against Stravinsky's
new music, perhaps even the core of it, is the result of such mental
habits.
Since 1924 Stravinsky has developed a style of polyphonic writing
which, contrary to the usual modern polyphony or "free counterpoint"
is concise, logical, economical and, in the deepest sense, authentic.
The origins of this style can be found in such works of the so-called
"Russian" period as
Noces
or
The Fox;
and, as a matter of fact, the
usual division of Stravinsky's music into the "Russian" and the "neo–
classic" periods is, to a careful observer, of no particular significance
or importance. The progress of
his
art has been very gradual, and
there never was a break between any two distinct periods. His preoc–
cupations and the sources of his materials may change, but the crafts–
manship is always there, and it is recognizable throughout any
material or any orchestral combination he may use. This unified tech–
nique makes for a lofty and transparent style whose rationality is
truly unique nowadays. Not since the masters of the eighteenth cen–
tury has there been such perfect unity of style in music.
