STRAVINSKY’S OCTET FOR WIND INSTRUMENTS:

AN OBJECT WITH SPECIFIC WEIGHT

Jordan E. Kinsey

The premiere of Igor Stravinsky’s Octet for Wind Instruments in Paris on October 18,
1923 was the unveiling of a new standard not only within his own oeuvre, but within the body of
Western Music generally both in composition and performance practice. It was a standard bom
by a deliberately chosen standard bearer: a champion co-opted by a generation of disillusioned
and war-ravaged Europeans.

Eminent musicologist Richard Taruskin states, “What had united the long nineteenth
century were its optimism and its faith in progress, and these were the Great War’s first and most
permanent casualties.”1 “Optimism” and “faith in progress” had produced Romanticism, a music
that by the end of World War I no longer seemed possible.

One of the most direct spokesmen for a break with the Romantic tradition was the British
philosopher and critic T.E. Hulme. Romanticism, Hulme argued, stemmed from the “fatal
hubris” of humanism and valued exactly what he saw as the least valuable in humanity:
its transient and irrational feelings. He bemoaned the “change from a certain profundity
and intensity to that flat and insipid optimism which [...] has finally culminated in the
state of slush in which we have the misfortune to live.”2 Hulme was killed by a mortar
shell while serving as an artilleryman during the war, but not before he issued the call for
“the dry hardness which you get in the classics.3

Critics began to see intimations of just such a “dry hardness” in the works of Igor
Stravinsky as early as 1913:

The great novelty of The Rite o f Spring is its renunciation of ‘sauce.’ Here is a work that
is absolutely pure. Nothing is blurred, nothing is mitigated by shadows; no veils and no
poetic sweeteners; not a trace of atmosphere. The work is whole and tough, its parts
remain quite raw; they are served up without digestive aids; everything is crisp, intact,
clear, and crude. Never had we heard a music so magnificently limited. If Stravinsky has
chosen those instruments that do not sigh, that say no more than they say, whose timbres
are without expression and are like isolated words, it is because he wants to enunciate
everything directly, explicitly, and concretely. His voice becomes the object’s proxy,
consuming it, replacing it; instead of evoking it, he utters it. Thus Stravinsky, with
unmatched flair and accomplishment, is bringing about in music the same revolution that
is taking place more humbly and tortuously in literature: he has passed from the sung to
the said, from invocation to statement, from poetry to reportage.4

The term “neo-classical” was first used a few months before the Octet’s premiere by the
critic Boris de Schloezer (a fellow Russian exile living in Paris) to describe an earlier Stravinsky
work: the Symphonies o f Wind Instruments. Schloezer described that work as:
Kinsey

...only a system of sounds, which follow one another and group themselves according to
purely musical affinities: the thought of the artist places itself only in the musical plan
without ever setting foot in the domain of psychology. Emotions, feelings, desires,
aspirations — this is the terrain from which he had pushed his work. The art of
Stravinsky is nevertheless strongly expressive; he moves us profoundly and his
perception is never formularized; but there is one specific emotion, a musical emotion.
This art does not pursue feeling or emotion; but it attains grace infallibly by its force and
by its perfection.5

Stravinsky biographer Eric Walter White (presumably working from Stravinsky’s own
diaries) indicates that sketches for the Octet exist from as early as 1919, but that Stravinsky
began writing in earnest at the end of 1922 and completed the work on May 26, 1923,A
Schloezer’s article was released in February, 1923 when one can assume that at least the overall
design of the Octet was complete. Nevertheless Richard Taruskin, while using the Octet to frame
the chapter on neo-classicism in his landmark Oxford History o f Western Music, argues that
Stravinsky was essentially giving the critics what they were asking for:

[...] these writings about Stravinsky are of great historical moment, not only for what
they tell us about the reception of Stravinsky’s music, but because they had an enormous
impact on the composer himself. They “influenced” him decisively toward his own brand
of neoclassicism, of which the Octet was probably the first fully conscious
manifestation. [...] We are always influenced by those who praise us, especially when the
praise is so intelligent, so hyperbolic — and so timely. Stravinsky did what was necessary
to keep that praise coming.7

Stravinsky’s claims regarding the origin of the work purport a much more original
creation:

The Octuor began with a dream in which I saw myself in a small room surrounded by a
small group of instrumentalists playing some very attractive music. I did not recognize
the music, though 1 strained to hear it, and I could not recall any feature of it the next day,
but I do remember my curiosity - in the dream - to know how many the musicians were.
1 remember too that after I had counted them to the number eight, I looked again and saw
that they were playing bassoons, trombones, trumpets, a flute, and a clarinet.8

The premiere was attended by a young Aaron Copland, who was near the end of his two-
year studies with Nadia Boulanger. Copland recalled a

general feeling of mystification [...] Everyone was asking why Stravinsky should have
exchanged his Russian heritage for what looked very much like a mess of eighteenth
century mannerisms. The whole thing seemed like a bad joke that left an unpleasant
aftereffect and gained Stravinsky the unanimous disapproval of the press. [...] No one

2
 Stravinsky>s Octet for Wind Instruments

could possibly have foreseen, first, that the Octet was destined to influence composers all
over the world in bringing the latent objectivity of modern music to full consciousness by
frankly adopting the ideals, form, and textures of the pre-Romantic era.9

Stravinsky devoted a manifesto to the Octet a few months after the premiere, his first
article ever written for publication. “Some Ideas about My Octuor” includes language and a spirit
that are remarkably similar to the critical praise he had received for the neoclassical leanings of
his earlier works:

My Octuor is a musical object [...] an object that has its own form. Like all other objects
it has weight and occupies a place in space, and like all other objects it will necessarily
lose part of its weight and space in time and through time. The loss will be in quantity,
but it can not lose in quality as long as its emotive basis has objective properties and as
long as this object keeps its ‘specific weight.’ One cannot alter the specific weight of an
object without destroying the object itself.

[...] A musical composition constructed on that basis could not, indeed, admit the
introduction of the element o f ‘interpretation’ in its execution without risking the
complete loss of its meaning.

To interpret a piece is to realize its portrait, and what I demand is the realization of the
piece itself and not of its portrait.

[...] I admit the commercial exploitation of a piece of music, but 1 do not admit its
emotive exploitation.10

In this manifesto, Stravinsky calls for an application of these neoclassical ideals not just
to the act of composition, but perhaps even more so to performance practice. And it is certainly
true that a great change in performance style of all Western music, from Bach to Stravinsky,
followed World War I. As Taruskin states in the Oxford History o f Western Music:

The ban on pathos was translated directly into a ban on two practices that symbolized
pathos in musical performance: tempo rubato (spontaneous, unnotated variation in
tempo) and similarly unnotated fluctuations in dynamics. Play with variable tempo and
dynamics and you are playing “romantically.” That is how all music was played up until
the 1920’s, as early phonograph recordings testify. No music is played like that any more,
not even romantic music. All music is played “as written,” within a hierarchical chain of
command (composer to editor to performer, with an additional step when a conductor is
employed) that takes all initiative away from the person actually producing the sounds.11

Whether these neoclassical ideals were a truly original concoction by Stravinsky or more
of a reaction to the Zeitgeist, he became their most ardent spokesman during the 1920’s and

3
Kinsey

1930’s. His 1936 autobiography includes the following passage:

[...] music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether
a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc., [...]
[Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the
purpose of its existence. If, as is nearly always the case, music appears to express
something, this is only an illusion and not a reality. It is simply an additional attribute
which, by tacit and inveterate agreement, we have lent it, thrust upon it, as a label, a
convention — in short an aspect unconsciously or by force of habit, we have come to
confuse with its essential being.12

And during his Harvard lectures of 1939, Stravinsky further railed against the
sinfulness of “interpretation,” the expressive input from the performer that goes beyond what
the text explicitly prescribes. He said it is “at the root of all the errors, all the sins, all the
misunderstandings that interpose themselves between the musical work and the listener and
prevent a faithful transmission of its message.”13

Somewhat unfortunately, there is a potential connection between these dehumanized,

neoclassical ideals and the totalitarian political ideals that were on the rise in Europe in the years
following World War I. Stravinsky, it seems, might have been primed to be a musical spokesman
for such ideals by circumstances in his earlier life. A Russian aristocrat by birth, the Bolshevik
revolution had cost him his status and his inheritance, and among his legacy is the following
statement (made in 1930): “I don’t believe that anyone venerates Mussolini more than I. To me,
he is the one man who counts nowadays in the whole world. [...] I have an overpowering urge to
render homage to your Duce. He is the savior of Italy and — let us hope — the world.”14

The elitist Zeitgeist that perhaps found its personification in the Octet was nowhere more
shamelessly stated than in the words of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, one of the architects of
Spanish fascism, in his 1925 essay The Dehumanization o f Art.

For a century and a half the masses have claimed to be the whole of society. Stravinsky’s
music [...] [has] the sociological effect of compelling the people to recognize itself for
what it is: a component among others of the social structure, inert matter of the historical
process, a secondary factor in the cosmos of spiritual life. On the other hand, the new art
also helps the elite to recognize themselves and one another in the drab mass of society
and to learn their mission which consists in being few and holding their own against the
many.15

In writing the Octet, Stravinsky strove to craft a work that left nothing to be interpreted:
to create an object of “specific weight.” His first step towards this goal was to set the work
entirely for wind instruments, a choice that he explains in his manifesto: “My Octuor is made
for an ensemble of wind instruments. Wind instruments seem to me to be more apt to render a

4
 Stravinsky s Octet for Wind Instruments

certain rigidity of the form I had in mind than other instruments — the string instruments, for
example, which are less cold and more vague.” Stravinsky also claims in the manifesto to have
excluded all dynamics (and dynamic gradations) except forte and piano. This is an exaggeration
at best: even the most cursory inspection of the 1923 edition reveals many crescendi and
decrescendi, as well as every possible dynamic between pianissimo and fortississimo.

Immediately upon becoming a citizen of the United States in 1945, Stravinsky utilized
his adopted nation’s copyright laws (and a new publishing contract with Boosey and Hawkes)
to begin an extensive editing and revision project that eventually included most of his works
from 1911 to 1934.17 These works, including the Octet, had previously been published by
Edition Russe de Musique, the German-headquartered Russian publishing firm begun by
Serge Koussevitzky. Stravinsky’s new edition of the Octet, released by Boosey and Hawkes
in 1952, included a number of minor corrections and revisions. Most of these involved adding
and changing nuances of articulation and dynamics; changes that seem to make the piece
more closely attuned to the realities of wind instrument performance. Many of these changes
(particularly the addition of more specific articulation markings in a number of places) actually
serve to strengthen the “dry hardness” of the work: it is as if Stravinsky had discovered through
the interceding almost-thirty years of performances (many of which he conducted) that the wind
instruments were capable of rendering even more of a “certain rigidity of the form I had in mind”
than he had originally predicted. The addition of more explicit performance instructions also
seem to serve, if anything, to further solidify the “specific weight” of the work.

One revision that is somewhat less than minor is the removal of the metric modulation
between variations C and D of the second movement. In the original, Stravinsky explicitly
indicates that the tempo of dotted quarter = 63 is to be maintained through the 2/8 measures
(measures 121-122), and that the eighth note pulse becomes the quarter note pulse in variation
D (rehearsal 38). This equates to a tempo of quarter note = 189 for variation D. In the revised
edition, he indicates a new (and slower) tempo for variation D: quarter note = 160.

The Octet is divided into three movements that each have classical titles; Sinfonia, Theme
and Variations, and Finale. “Sinfonia” hearkens to the classic opera overture, the birthplace of
sonata form; and the first movement is, indeed, in sonata form. This is the first time Stravinsky
had used sonata form since his Opus 1 Symphony of 1907, a piece which also shares the same
key with the Octet: E-flat major. The second movement began life as a waltz but evolved into the
current theme and variations, in which the variations appear in a unique recurring pattern to be
discussed later. The original waltz now exists as variation C. This is the first time Stravinsky had
used the theme and variations form in a composition. The Finale is a 5-part rondo with coda.

Within the “rigidity” of these classical forms, Stravinsky attempted (and succeeded, I
believe) to place the unique and subversive harmonic language that he had been developing
throughout his life. For example: in the first movement, rather than following the Classical
example of presenting a first theme in the tonic key and a second theme in the dominant key,

5
Kinsey

then working out the resultant polarization in the development before presenting both themes
in the tonic key in the recapitulation, Stravinsky’s themes are presented not in a tonic-dominant
relationship but a half-step apart: E-flat and D. How he adapts the form to fit these key areas is
explained below.

All measure and rehearsal numbers in this analysis are taken from the 1952 edition.
Musical examples are presented in concert pitch with most dynamics and articulations omitted
unless they support the formal and harmonic analysis. Bassoon parts, though printed in tenor clef
in the published score, will be presented in either treble or bass clef in the examples.

Movement One: Sinfonia

The first movement begins in E-flat major with a 41-bar introduction which is itself
in ternary form and presents the background tonal structure that will become the basis for the
sonata itself. The A-section comprises the first four measures, the B-section begins at rehearsal
1, and a modified and expanded A-section closes the introduction in measures 34 through 41.
The introduction ends, in Classical fashion, with a B-flat dominant 7th chord in measure 41 to
set up the E-flat tonic of the exposition. The exposition begins at rehearsal 6 with its first theme.
A modulation to D major begins at rehearsal 8, and is complete by rehearsal 9 in anticipation
of the entrance of the second theme at rehearsal 10. The development begins at rehearsal 13
and includes four sections, identified by the rehearsal numbers 13, 14, 15, and 16. Rehearsal 17
provides a retransition, and the recapitulation begins at rehearsal 18. From rehearsal 23 to the end
is a coda.

The middleground of the first four bars of the introduction foreshadow a motive that is a
background structural device in this movement: the embellishment of a central tone by chromatic
lower and upper neighbors. Demonstrated in Example 1, I have labeled this the “L-U Neighbor
Motive:”

Example 1: Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 1st mvt. mm. 1-4.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.
6
 Stravinsky s Octet fo r Wind Instruments

The reduction shown in Example 2 demonstrates that it is the dominant key here that is
embellished by lower and upper neighbors:

a - ... >^ ‘ ......... = j|

Example 2: Reduction o f L-U Neighbor Motive

Following this diatonic section the remainder of the introduction continues to utilize the
E-flat major pitch collection, even though this collection is often almost completely obscured
by elaborative tones and E-flat is never explicitly stated as a tonic. This tonal obscurity leads to
the aforementioned B-flat dominant seventh chord in measure 41 to set up the exposition, which
states E-flat as the tonic unequivocally.

The first phrase of the exposition’s first theme is seven measures in length and cadences
strongly in E-flat major in measure 48. The second phrase, beginning at rehearsal 7, is eight
measures in length because the theme is presented in canon with itself. In this second phrase
is found the introduction o f the pitch D-flat to create an extended E-flat collection. It ends on a
cadence in the dominant key, B-flat, in measure 56.

Beginning at rehearsal 8 the first three measures of the theme is used to create a
traditional transitional device, a sequence, to modulate to D for the presentation o f the second
theme at rehearsal 10. In the middleground o f these measures we find stepwise voice-leading
that supports the foreground tonal motion from E-flat to D. By reducing the texture we find that
the highest sounding voices in the first phrase (mm. 57-63) are the first trumpet and clarinet. The
motion o f these voices, as shown in Example 3, forms a diatonic descent to D:

Example 3: Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 1st mvt. mm. 57-63.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

At the moment that these voices arrive on D at rehearsal 9, the flute enters and takes over the
role of the clarinet as the highest sounding instrument. With the trumpet, the flute jumps to A and
begins a new diatonic descent to D that, utilizing movement o f a fifth, is even stronger than the
first one (see Example 4):

7
Kinsey

F#

Example 4: Diatonic movement of a fifth from A to D

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 1st mvt. mm. 64-69.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

The second theme is now presented, initially in the key of D major with a G major
collection occurring above. Rehearsal 11 serves to shift the tonality so that at rehearsal 12, this
theme is restated, with both of these components moving a tritone in opposite directions. Now,
the theme is stated in A-flat major with a D-flat major collection occurring above. This reversal is
demonstrated in Example 5:

j ^ m
Example 5: Theme 2 haronic presentation
(Theme represented by open notehead,
accompanying collection represented by closed notehead.)

This statement leads into the development at rehearsal 13. The first half of the
development’s first section (mm. 87-90) seems to define the C-major pitch collection, but
this quickly devolves in the last half of the section into chromaticism. From here forward, the
remainder of the development is highly chromatic, with brief pauses at a seemingly random
assortment of brief cadences. These cadences are outlined in Example 6.
ta.

collection) (ms. 95) (ms. 103) (ms. 112) (ms. 119) Recapitulation)
Example 6: Random assortment of cadences in development

Example 6: Random assortment of cadences in development

8
 Stravinsky’s Octet for Wind Instruments

The “L-U Neighbor Motive” makes another appearance at the recapitulation: the first key area
of the recapitulation, E-major, is approached in the bass voice in the immediately preceding
measures by F and E-flat (see Example 7):

3*j* t i j u j u iji» y i

Example 7: Appearance of “L-U Neighbor Motive” in recapitulation.

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, lstmvt. mm. 123-126.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

In another deviation from Classical sonata form, the second theme is recapitulated
first. This tactic of recapitulating the themes in reverse of the traditional order is also present
in Stravinsky’s later Sonata for Two Pianos. Also, instead of being presented in the “tonic”
key of E-flat major, the second theme is presented in E major. A transition (discussed below)
at rehearsal 19 modulates back to E-flat major before the recapitulation of the first theme at
rehearsal 21. (The last two notes before the recapitulation of the first theme are, predictably, E
and D: yet another appearance of the L-U neighbor motive.) Thus (E to E-flat) is maintained the
original descending half-step presentation (E-flat to D) of these themes in the exposition, and
forms a background presentation of the “L-U Neighbor Motive”. This presentation is represented
in Example 8.
(Expo.) (Recap.)

Example 8: Background presentation of “L-U Neighbor Motive”

in presentation of themes in Exposition and Recapitulation

This use of the “L-U Neighbor Motive” as a background AND local structural device is
analogous to the same use of tonic and dominant harmonies in a Classical sonata. In a Classical
sonata, tonic and dominant are used to create local cadences and also form the background
“departure and return” tonal areas of the form as a whole.

The transition between the keys of these two themes is accomplished using the same type
of middleground voice-leading that was used to transition between the two keys in the exposition
(see Example 9):

9
Kinsey

Example 9: Middleground voice-leading of transition between themes in Recapitulation

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 1st mvt. mm. 145-151.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission

Movement Two: Tema con Variazioni

The second movement begins in D major. After the theme is stated, the variations are
laid out in the recurring pattern ABACDAE to form a type of hybrid form between theme-and-
variations and rondo. Stravinsky went on to utilize this hybrid form in both the Sonata for Two
Pianos and the Ebony Concerto, and repetition can be found to be an important aspect in many
of his works at multiple levels of analysis. Further upholding the Octet as a landmark work, this
movement is the first example of a free-variation technique that Stravinsky went on to employ
in multiple works during his neoclassical period: namely the Concerto for Two Pianos (1935),
Jeu de cartes (1936), Danses concertantes (1941-42), the Sonata for Two Pianos (1943-44),
the Ebony Concerto (1945), and the Septet (1953). Specifically, Stravinsky’s variations almost
always include sharp contrasts of mood, substantial departures from the formal design of the
theme that is varied, and constitute the slow movement of a larger work. All of these precedents
are established in this seminal work.

The theme is based on the tetrachord (0134) which comes in two forms: A-Bb-C-C# and
D#-E-F#-G. This set is only one pitch removed from the familiar “Dies Irae” collection (0135).
As shown in Example 10, it is stated first in the flute and clarinet in the interval form -4,+4,-3,+2
(-4) +1,+3,-1,-3 (+4) -1, -3, +4 (-4) +1, +6, +3, -1, divided into four phrases, each of begins a
major third higher or lower than the previous one:

10
 Stravinsky s Octet for Wind Instruments

Example 10: Initial presentation of theme

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 2nd mvt. mm. 1-8.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

For ease of future identification, I have labeled each of these phrases by their intervallic content:
-4,+4, -3, +2 = Phrase A
+ 1,+3,-1,-3 = Phrase B
-1,-3,+4 = Phrase C
+1,+6,+3,-1 = Phrase D

The theme is then stated again, beginning at rehearsal 25, in a shortened and modified version
between the second trumpet and first trombone. This statement is depicted in Example 11.

+1 +6 +3 -1

Example 11: Second statement of theme in second trumpet and first trombone
Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 2nd mvt. mm. 9-14.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

The A variation is closest to the theme in pitch content, in that it includes the theme
itself broadly stated (albeit transposed and with the first pitch displaced by an octave) in the
Kinsey

bass voices while the remaining instruments provide a swirling figuration above, as shown in
Example 12:

Flute

Clarinet in Bi>

Bassoon 1

Bassoon 2

Trumpet in C

Trumpet in A

Trombone 1

Trombone 2

Example 12: Beginning of variation A

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 2nd mvt. mm. 15-16.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

This recurrence (three times) of a pitch collection so near to the “Dies Irae” theme gives
the movement a somewhat sinister affect. The statement of the theme in the bass voices in a
repetitive variation also seems to harken back to the cantus firmus ideals of the middle ages,
making this movement neo-medieval as much as neo-classical. This cantus firmus technique also
appears in the D variation.

The A variation can be divided into four sections, which vary four different portions of
the theme. The first section (measures 15-18), varies measures 1-4 of the theme. The second
section (measures 19-22) varies measures 5-8 of the theme. The third section (measures 23

12
 Stravinsky s Octet for Wind Instruments

and 24) varies measures 9 and 10 o f the theme. The fourth section (measures 25 and 26) varies
measures 11 -14 o f the theme. This fourth section is absent from the other two statements o f the A
variation in this movement.

Variation B includes a march-like motive and is in a march-like tempo in E major. Its first
section (measures 27-34) is based on measures 1-3 of the theme. Its second section (measures
35-45) is based on measures 5-8 o f the theme and modulates to D major. Its third section
(measures 46-56) is based on measures 1-4 o f the theme. This variation conceals the theme more
completely than any of the others, and it can only be found through careful scrutiny, divided
among multiple instruments. It is revealed in Example 13.

Phrase A

Example 13: Theme presentation in Variation B

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 2nd mvt. mm. 28-34.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

The remainder of the sections conceal the theme in similar fashion.

The second statement of the A theme, at rehearsal 31, is different from the original
statement at rehearsal 26. In place of the fourth section from the original statement of this
variation (measures 25-26), we find a one-measure transition into variation C (measure 67).

The C variation is the original waltz Stravinsky devised when he first began work on this
movement, so in it we can find the seminal materials o f the theme itself. It is entirely in A major.
The waltz is divided into two sections: section 1 (measures 68-97) coincides with measures 1-8
o f the theme, and section 2 (measures 98-122) coincides with measures 9-14 of the theme.

The D variation begins in A major with an introduction (measures 123-130), then the first
section (measures 131-155) varies the entirety o f the original theme in another cantus firmus
style setting, as shown in Example 14:

13
Kinsey

a i j I,.
p ■
J |:j—
----- J* :
-- II

Phrase B: +1 +3 -1 -3

ilh *i ^—
U?
-

J
M J
Example 14: cantus firmus setting of theme
Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 2nd mvt. mm. 131-141.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

Section 2 (measures 156-175) is based on entirely new material. Section 3 (measures 176-208)
utilizes material from the introduction to this variation as well as measures 1-8 of the original
theme.
The last statement of the A variation that begins at rehearsal 49, like the second statement
at rehearsal 31, is also missing the fourth section from the original statement at rehearsal 26. In
its place, we find another transitional measure (measure 219).

Variation E sets the theme as the subject of a fugue, in which the melody is traded
between instrumental pairs. The theme’s initial statement is disguised by octave displacements,
as demonstrated in Example 15:

Phrase A: +4 -3 +2
_______ fat

Example 15: 2nd mvt, ms. 51, bassoon

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky.
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

14
 Stravinsky s Octet for Wind Instruments

Movement Three: Finale

The Finale movement is derived from this last variation, and becomes a 5-part rondo with
coda, arranged in the form ABACA-Coda. It begins in C major and appears from the outset to
be the most “Classical” of this neoclassical work: it includes a walking bass line and is the most
strictly contrapuntal of the movements. The bassoon figure in measures 20-21 is reminiscent of
the well-known C-minor fugue from Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier, as demonstrated in Example
16:

£* £ f—
-»--------
-L 7 * =
Octet: Finale: Bsn. 1: mm. 20-22

-
Lp a* CJ J - L S I- 1 i
Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier, Book One: Fugue 2
(re-barred)

Example 16: Similarity between bassoon figure and Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier

The music in this movement includes no dramatic key alterations and would sound rather
diatonic if not for the C major scale in the second bassoon, which ascends to the tenth and back
down again for 32 measures without any regard for the melodies above it, causing consonances
and dissonances to align at random. This subversion of the counterpoint portends a satirizing of
the Classical rondo form that will continue to develop throughout the movement.

The first antic is delivered beginning at rehearsal 61, when the contrapuntal texture that
is by now firmly established in the woodwinds is sabotaged by a sudden lyrical line appearing in
the brass. The ending of this movement includes the greatest contradiction of the Classical form
of the entire work: a nod to American jazz. Beginning at rehearsal 71, the anapestic rhythms
that were featured in the development of the first movement return and begin to build towards
a climax. Just at the moment when such a climax would occur, however, the dynamic drops to
subito piano and a “3 + 3 + 2” pattern is introduced in the trombones, bassoons, and C trumpet,
as demonstrated in Example 17:

15
Kinsey

Bassoon 1

Bassoon 2

Trumpet in C

Trombone I

Trombone 2

Example 17: 3+3+2 rhythmic pattern

Octet for Wind Instruments, Igor Stravinsky, 3rd mvt. mm. 154-157
Copyright Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. Used by Permission.

This smooth, “cool,” syncopated pattern, endemic to Latin American dance genres and popular in
American jazz at the time of the Octet, becomes the sole musical material of the Coda that closes
the movement and the work.

Taruskin argues that this jazz rhythm was actually a logical choice for Stravinsky, and
one that can easily be defended theoretically:

The characteristic “baroque” rhythms — the walking basses, the energetic anapests —
all involve eighths and sixteenths, values below the level of the tactus or “felt” beat
(traditionally represented by the quarter note). They are, therefore, “subtactile” pulses.
Ragtime and dance-music syncopations, too (what Stravinsky and other Europeans
loosely called “jazz”), relied on a well-articulated subtactile pulse — that is, the little
rhythmic subdivisions to which the accented long notes were shifted in the syncopated
“jazz” style.

Closing Thoughts

Whether the neoclassical ideals set forth in Stravinsky’s Octet were a completely original
contrivance or were inspired by critical reactions to Stravinsky’s earlier works, it is inarguable
that the piece itself became a flagship for a new way of making music. Combined with the
writings that accompanied its premiere (both by Stravinsky and others) this work established a
new standard for performance practice, based on complete devotion and absolute adherence to
the “text” at the expense of any human input, that “represents the ultimate triumph of the literate
tradition over the oral.” The oral tradition over which Stravinsky (and the Octet) triumphed had
defined music-making, more or less, since the very beginning.
16
 Stravinsky s Octet for Wind Instruments

ENDNOTES

'■Taruskin, Richard. “Pathos Is Banned.” Music in the Early Twentieth Century, 471. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010.

: Hulme, T.E. “Modern Art and Its Philosophy.” Speculations. London: Routledge & Paul, 1960.

3- Ibid., 126-127.

4 Riviere, Jacques, “Le Sacre du Printemps.” La Nouvelle Revue frangaise, 1 November 1913.

1 de Schloezer, Boris. “La musique.” La revue contemporaine. 1 Lebruary 1923.

6- White, Eric Walter. Stravinsky: The Composer and His Works. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1966. 62.

7 Taruskin, Richard. “Pathos Is Banned.” Music in the Early Twentieth Century, 469, 471.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

8- Stravinsky, Igor, and Robert Craft. Dialogues and a Diary. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1963.70.

9 Copland, Aaron. The New Music 1900-1960. New York: W.W. Norton, 1968. 72.

10 Stravinsky, Igor. 1924. “Some Ideas about My Octuor”, translated from the Lrench. The Arts
6, no. 1 (January, 1924): 4-6. Reprinted in Eric Walter White, Stravinsky’: The Composer and His
Works, 528-531. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966.

" Taruskin, Richard. “Pathos Is Banned.” Music in the Early Twentieth Century, 475. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010.

12 Stravinsky, Igor. Stravinsky: An Autobiography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1936. 83-84.

13 Stravinsky, Igor. Poetics o f Music: In the Form o f Six Lessons. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard
University Press, 1970. 122.

14 Gasco, Alberto. Da Cimarosa a Stravinsky. Rome, 1939. Quoted in Harvey Sachs, Music in
Fascist Italy. New York: Norton, 1988. 168.

15 Gasset, Jose Ortega Y. The Dehumanization o f Art; and Other Essays on Art, Culture, and
Literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968. 6-8.

16 Stravinsky, Igor. 1924. “Some Ideas about My Octuor”, translated from the Lrench. The Arts

17
Kinsey

6, no. 1 (January, 1924): 4-6. Reprinted in Eric Walter White, Stravinsky: The Composer and His
Works, 528-531. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966.

17 White, Eric Walter. Stravinsky: The Composer and His Works. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1966. 99.

18 Taruskin, Richard. “Pathos Is Banned.” Music in the Early Twentieth Century, 488. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010.

19 Ibid., 476.

18
Copyright of Journal of Band Research is the property of American Bandmasters Association
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.