Stravinsky ,

Symphonies of Wind Instruments

Stravinskys
Symphonies of Wind Instruments
utilises among other techniques voicing
and instrumental spacing in conjunction with harmonic implications. The composer also
employs segmentation in blocks and contrast in style, which are systematically synthesised in
order to create a work which is both continuous and united yet varied and full of distinction.
In terms of what Cone terms block forms, we can observe a number of apparently
distinct sections, demarked through contrasts in tempo, rhythm, theme and instrumentation.
The homophonic chordality of figure 1, for example, is in sharp contrast to the opening
ff
section, through its tutti orchestration and regular time signature among other characteristics.
No transition occurs before the reprise of the opening material at f.2, creating an effect which
highlights Cones observations about the larger structural implications of Stravinskys block
form compositional approach: in a similar way to which the material from f.2 returns at f.4, the
return of opening material at f.3 seems inevitable, and while we recall the appearance of the
contrasting passage at f.2 with its reprise at f.4, the section at f.2 seems more like a preparation
or extension of the music which opens the work. Cone observes that this effect can be explained
through noting that sections of the same musical construction will share an identifiable strand of
theme or rhythmical identity, which is implied through the sounding of a contrasting passage,
and vice-versa. This notion can arguably be observed from f.1-4 and on a broader scale
throughout the piece. This is one of the ways in which Stravinsky achieves continuity while
introducing contrasting musical material.
While this almost psycho-analytical technique may introduce an arguably tenuous
method for reconciling the contrasting sections of Stravinskys
Symphonies of Wind
Instruments
, we may also suggest a number of other ways in which the composers blocks of
musical material are linked. A continuity of pitch, if not harmony, is displayed in the opening
sections of
Symphonies
, and is realised in later passages. The interval of a fourth between F-Bb
is common to both sections, and can serve as a pitch-link between the two sections. However, in
instances such as between the contrasting passages of f.5 and f.6, Stravinsky utilises a
link-passage, through which pitches are introduced in preparation for the next section, while a
more regular rhythm is established also preceding the new material. In some ways, the quick
juxtaposition of two contrasting sections, such as between f.1-4, and the introduction of
transitional material both achieve a sense of continuity between distinct sections, through
alternative methods.
One can also identify even more subtle ways by which Stravinsky links otherwise
unconnected musical passages, such as shortly preceding f.6, whereby a change in texture is both
pre-empted and joined in a smooth fashion, by the introduction of the second and third flute
parts in the bar before f.6. Unlike f.2, where a sharp contrast in both register and orchestration
occurs, Stravinsky here reconciles two neighbouring sections through delicate instrumentation.
Together with a deft method of orchestration, the opening passages also display a
rhythmical and metrical method of linking two otherwise contrasting sections, creating a sense
of continuity. The distinction between the section at f.8 and that of f.9 is clear, however the
bassoon, in an extremely high register (which differs from his 1920 score), plays an apparently

simple and repetitive motif. The musical material is most often in pairs of quavers, however the
grouping of the solo line differs from its implications, being first grouped in twos and threes,
before the groups of three notes become more prevalent, from f.8; bb. 4-7. Continuity is created
in a metric-modulation type effect, since it is true that three quavers in crotchet = 108 is
identical to two quavers in crotchet = 72. Therefore the grouping, commonly in threes, creates a
sense of common value between the musical material at f.8 and f.9. A further link here between
the two passages is effectively fashioned through the syncopated nature of the chords in the
flutes, interspersed with breath markings, which echo the off-beat stabs of the next section,
negating the stasis of a 2/4 time signature. In these ways, Stravinsky disguises the link between
the section at f.6 and the return of the opening material at f.9, heightening the sense of unity, yet
maintaining what is essentially a block like structure of forms. As Walsh recognises, the
techniques of Stravinskys block form composition create a work not dissimilar to
contemporary constructivist painting, of Stravinskys Russia.1 The Stravinsky maintains
distinct and separate sections, yet manufactures an overall architectural unity is similar to
approaches to perspective, and this relates to the sense in which sections are interpreted in
retrospect. Stravinsky himself noted that the work consists of litanies in close tempo relations
succeeding one another, yet we may argue that the piece achieves coherence not just through
purely architectural and mathematical means, but also other methods.
Retrospect and hindsight is a useful tool in the final realisation of the chorale. In many
ways the teleological destination is the final chords, although said chord appears earlier in the
piece. Pieter van den Toorn notes the possibility, or rather implication, or a V-I cadence to close
the chorale which ends the work.2 Stravinsky cloaks the implication of a perfect cadence firstly
through the addition of multiple dissonant notes which remain unresolved traditionally, while
he also usurps our expectations by introducing a breath marking after f.75 before the final held
chord, placing more emphasis on this subsequent moment, and interrupting any possible
continuity between chords. Furthermore, the spacing and figuration of the chords is
unconventional to say the least, with a ii-I movement in the tuba not being realised in a
conventional manner, and subverting the final cadence. Additionally, the step-wards rise in the
flute, from C to a dissonant D at the top of the texture contributing to this notion of ambiguity.
Nonetheless, the final chords function in terms of voice-leading in a manner not unfamiliar to
conventional harmony, with the fagotti line-leading being emblematic of this, while the flute
line is paradoxically traditional in its line-leading when approaching the cadence, however
resultant is a dischord. Conversely, the pervasion of parallel movement, such as in the
trombones and horns cannot be disguised by the breath marking, and evokes a more ancient, if
less traditional cadential treatment. In this way, Stravinsky allows a certain ambiguity to be
achieved, and as van den Toorn suggests, the recollection of a V-I cadence at the end is just that:
retrospective in its possibility.
However, what the final passage is characteristic of is Stravinskys fascinating voicing
and instrumentation which gives the piece both contrast and continuity. One could argue that
Stravinskys treatment of the crucial chord, first heard at f.1 of the piece, devalues it
1
2

Walsh,S.
TheMusicofStravinsky
,(Oxford,1998).p.104
vandenToorn,P.C.
TheMusicofIgorStravinsky,
(NewHaven,1998).p.3423

harmonically and strips it of any functional purpose, thereby removing any possible harmonic
continuity which may be achievable. Certainly, the first appearance of the chord at f.1 is
problematic. Technically, the chord heard here, and subsequently repeated in a dogmatic
manner, is a dominant minor ninth in second inversion. However, at f.1 the chord appears to
lose all functionality because of Stravinskys figuration of it with the heavy dissonance near the
bottom of the texture, while the incessant repetition of it, out of harmonic context, serves to
render it nonsense in the overall musical language, as it no longer serves a conventional
purpose. The repetition of the chord in this way works in a similar fashion to the repetition of
pitch in music so as to render it a centre. Through destabilising and uprooting this chord
therefore, Stravinsky gives the music a sense of harmonic weightlessness, whereby there is no
feeling of motion as such. This is a very intricate technique which can be seen to link the music
here at f.1 with that of the chorale, heard in its full form from f.65. The floating effect of the
spacing and sense of redundant harmony appears through both passages, and we may recall
moments such as f.1 in retrospect, functioning much like the final cadence. On a micro-scale
then, the passage from f.0-11 displays multiple musical threads which pass through similar
passages and remain throughout the alternating contrasting sections, while on a macro-scale,
recollections of harmonic weightlessness and stasis can be seen to continue through the
intersecting music between f.1 and the final chorale.