Unfolding New York Philharmonic concert Program of The Rite of Spring
After reflecting on the research I have done so far on the previous premieres that took place, I wanted to expand my understand and knowledge by analyzing a different type of source. That is why for my research on Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” I have decided to analyze a program titled The Philharmonic Society of New York Program from a concert that was performed by the New York Philharmonic at Carnegie Hall in 1925. As I was reading through the program I quickly noticed how much information there is to unfold. There are so many interesting ideas and thoughts that lead me down a path of asking many questions.
As much as I want to talk about every single detail that stood out to me, I want to focus more on the three main ideas that I found to be quite interesting that I read in the program. First off, at the beginning of the program, the author mentions, “The concert version of the music of the ballet was played for the first time by an orchestra conducted by Mr. Monteux at the Casino de Paris, April 5th, 1914” (p.g 4). As soon as I read this passage it generated a question which is, how are the two versions of the “Rite of Spring” different? How is the music from the ballet different from the content version of the piece? Is the music different in the ballet to support the choreography that takes place? Also, how did the audience react to the concert version of this piece at the performance in Paris and in New York for that matter?
The next idea that stood out to me is how Stravinsky states “I have written a work that is architectonic, not anecdotal” (p.g 4). In other words, He wanted the “Rite of Spring” to have more musical structure and not so much of a storyline. I found this to be interesting since when I think of “The Rite of Spring” I think of it as a story.
The third idea I wanted to mention that stood out to me was how the author mentions, “The choreography of the original ballet as devised by Nijinsky was subsequently discarded, and a new choreographic setting, designed by Massine, was used at a revival of the work in Paris” (p.g 4). I think this is really interesting because In one of the documents from the premiere or in this case many years after the premiere Stravinsky doesn’t seem to hesitate to give his honest opinion of Nijinsky’s work, however, the document was written in 1960 and this performance of the New York Philharmonic took place in 1925, it is possible that Stravinsky was thinking about Nijinsky’s work prior to him saying what he said in the document since Nijinsky’s work seemed to be tossed to the side to make way for new choreography.
In the program, the author goes on to say, “We have eliminated all anecdotic or symbolic detail, etc., which would weigh down and obscure a work of pure musical construction, a work which should be accompanied by a choreographic representation as purely abstract as possible” (p.g 4). In other words, the choreography should be more musical and meaningful not so much of a story.
