PARTISAN REVIEW
polyphonic thinking, on functional harmony, on variation. Stravinsky,
the Russian, was brought up in the atmosphere of the well-known
"Five" (Balakirev, Cui, Borodin, Moussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov) who,
through Glinka, had inherited some Italian influences, and who, basing
their art on folkloristic elements, had endeavored to create an autono–
mous Russian music-liberated from what is, to a man like Schonberg,
its real heart. Yet the difference thus established between Schonberg
and Stravinsky is only peripheral. Schonberg has not accepted
his
tradition
passively but has augmented it in a very specific way. Nor is Stravinsky
a slave to the "local" tradition in which he was born-and, in any case,
it may be said that with Rimsky-Korsakov already, the endeavor of
the
Five
had proved a failure: in his works we find infiltrations of those
"Germanic" elements which the Russians had originally set out to fight.
It
did
not take long for Stravinsky's path to cross the modern road of
Western tradition. He soon became aware of Schonberg's emancipation
of dissonance, and so accepted it, in his own way, that now there are
people who believe that the
Sacre du Printemps,
in 1913, created the
caezura in modern harmony, forgetting or not knowing that, already
in 1906, Schonberg had drawn more radical conclusions.
The emancipation of dissonance, however,
is
only one aspect of
Schonberg's
music,
and there are more important differences between
Schonberg and Stravinsky. Schonberg accepted the consequences of a
tradition, developing it with lucidity and strength. But this cannot
be said for Stravinsky. His approach to the same problems, bold as it
may have sounded thirty-five years ago, today seems timorous and su–
perficial. Originally attracted by new sounds and rhythmic devices, he
failed to see really what they implied. His harmonic innovations (unlike
Schonberg's which are derived from a logical use of the twelve tones) ·
are based on little more than notions-like his superimpositions of triads.
As chords they often have a genuine musical significance, but
the~r
meaning stays "local." They cannot be used in another work without
becoming a mere
imitation
of themselves. Lucky as their discovery was,
they have been unable to evolve; by now they are pure automatons, and
their automatic use has exhausted the patience even of their creator.
The sacrifice of arbitrary and hedonistic attitudes which Schonberg
demands is difficult for most musicians. Hence, many of them who want
to be "modern" or "advanced" find it easier to follow Stravinsky. Wasn't
he one of those who shook the tyranny of convention? Wasn't the first
performance of the
Sacre du Printemps
one of the biggest "scandals"
in musical history? But from the very beginning Stravinsky's work has
been outside the great tradition. Even
in
his boldest works, the segments,
362
