[Folio 4]XCIV
– Music in a historical framework. Of course music reflects all the historical conjuncture that surrounds it (the spirit of the historical period = example of the difference in spirit of eras like that of Bach—Beethoven—Chopin (try to find letters of the three).
The Patron
Obviously I cannot give a music history class and
The public
illustrate for you with anecdotes all the situationsXCV
Snobbery
in which different authors found themselves but
The bourgeois spirit.
allow [me] to broach a few questions I consider interesting and topical.XCVI
– Beethoven hates Napoleon, resembles him a lot. —Napoleon had never heard of him.
[Unnumbered folio, recto]
5) Russian music
Почему я вдруг заговорил именно о русск муз(ыке) Не потому что я русский или что я ее особ(енно) ценю по сравнению с другими музыками. Так же не думайте что я враждебен к проявлению национ (ального) … начала разумеется поскольку такое проявление бессознательно.XCVII
I do not claim to be a citizen of the world as the nineteenth-century Russian revo- lutionaries liked to say.
Folklore and musical culture. Plainchant, sacred and profane music. Italianisms, Germanisms and the Orientalisms of nineteenth-century Russian music. The complexity of Russian culture. The two Russias (the revolution and Russian conservatism—the two disorders). Glinka, Tchaikovsky.
[Unnumbered folio, verso]
order, Scriabine, disorder (religious, political, ideological, psychological and musical), MousorgskiXCVIII—between the two.
The new Soviet, Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijani etc. folklorism and the degradation of values.
[Unnumbered folio, recto]
6) On performanceXCIX
1) music is written and 2) performedC
SimultaneousCI nothingness and reality of a musical work. Music exists as long as it sounds. Exists again as long as it reverberates.CII Between these two moments, music does not exist (a painting or a sculpture exists)
Interpretation—performance
Performers, listeners and the public. Presence and absence in the face of music: the public’s activity and passivity in the face of music.
The problem of music criticism its aberrationsCIII and classical distractions (Klassische Kritiken—anfragen Strecker).CIV
And now it’s the epilogue.CV
[verso]
– The true meaning of music. Like all of man’s creative faculties it is a search for unity, communion, union with one’s neighbor and with Being (бытие). creative Monism.
[Roland-Manuel’s typescript of the recto and verso of this page on performance follows here.]
Commentary
Craft states that none of Stravinsky’s 1500-word manuscript was used in the published Poétique musicale.31 This assertion is inaccurate. In fact, Stravinsky’s manuscript consists of 1) six pages of material that served as the basis for two substantial sections of the first chapter, “Getting Acquainted”; and 2) a twelve-page revised version of Suvchinsky’s outline with adjustments and elaborations. Roland-Manuel reviewed and corrected Stravinsky’s French in his typed transcription of the first six pages of this manuscript and then used this to write “Getting Acquainted.”32 As Suvchinsky’s outline does not include the idea of an introduction, this part of the manuscript must have been Stravinsky’s idea. But after having prepared the first six pages as a draft of an introduction, Stravinsky then relied entirely on Suvchinsky’s work. At the outset of his notes, Stravinsky announces eight lessons, establishing a direct link with Suvchinsky’s outline in eight parts. But he tacitly retracts the number eight in the pages that follow and in the end presents a sketch of the work structured in six lessons. The reason for this change can be clarified in a letter from Stravinsky to Edward Forbes, chairman of the Harvard committee, dated 3 June 1939, in which Stravinsky insists on limiting the number of conferences—initially eight—to six due to a question of time management: he was planning a series of concerts in America for the end of the season.33
Comparison of the Three Versions of the General Outline
A comparison between Suvchinsky’s and Stravinsky’s outlines and the chapter outline of Harvard University Press’s first published edition (1942) of the Poétique musicale in French clearly demonstrates that Suvchinsky’s outline must have come first and that the definitive version of the work remained relatively close to Suvchinsky’s initial conception. This conclusion counters that of Robert Craft, who argued that “Suvchinsky’s roles were that of adviser on the state of music in the USSR and that of translator of the Russian words and phrases in Stravinsky’s notes.”34 The chart below shows how the book developed from Suvchinsky’s original outline through Stravinsky’s to the final product. Stravinsky incorporated Suvchinsky’s original stand-alone lesson on “The Work of Music” into the first lesson, which Roland-Manuel ultimately titled “On the Phenomenon of Music.” Roland-Manuel or somebody else also replaced “Musical Métier” with “Composition of Music” for lesson 3. Stravinsky combined two chapters that were initially separate, “Musical Typology” and “Looking Back through History,” to create chapter 4. Finally, the two chapters devoted to Russian music became just one.
SUVCHINSKY’S
MANUSCRIPT (3 SHEETS)
STRAVINSKY’S
MANUSCRIPT (19 SHEETS)
FIRST EDITION
HARVARD 1942 (IN FRENCH)
Thesis for an Explication of Music in the Form of 8 Lessons
[untitled]
Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons
I. Getting Acquainted
I. Getting Acquainted
I. The Phenomenon of Music
II. a. The Phenomenon of Music
II. On the Phenomenon of Music
II. The Musical Work
II. b. The Musical Work
III. The Musical Métier
III. The Musical Métier or, rather, On Musical Composition
III. On Musical Composition
IV. Musical Typology
IV. Musical Typology (that we notice by looking back through history)
IV. Musical Typology
V. Looking Back through History
VI. and VII. Russian Music
V. Russian Music
V. The Avatars of Russian Music
VIII. On Performance
VI. On Performance
VI. On Performance
Epilogue
Epilogue
A comparative analysis of Suvchinsky’s and Stravinsky’s manuscripts shows that Stravinsky integrated almost all of Suvchinsky’s outline into his own and then made additions to it.35 Stravinsky commented upon his intent to give a “polemical” course and his claimed quality of being “reactive” (as opposed to revolutionary). He insisted on the terms “academicism” and “modernism”; on the opposition between sacred and profane; and on the examples of Haydn and Wagner. And he expressed a desire to incorporate into his work the notions of patronage, the public, snobbery, and the bourgeois spirit. Finally, Stravinsky provided commentary in his notes on the ideas Suvchinsky suggested, formulating a few snippets of text in the first person. Some of Stravinsky’s words made their way into the published edition; clearly, Stravinsky’s notes constituted the point of departure for his work with Roland-Manuel.
The chart above demonstrates that there were at least two significant stages in the genesis of the Poétique musicale: the written transfer of ideas from Suvchinsky to Stravinsky, and the written transfer of ideas from Stravinsky to Roland-Manuel. This is not to mention the possible verbal exchanges among the three collaborators for which there is no historical record, although the manuscripts give certain clues.
F
rom Suvchinsky to Stravinsky
Comparing these two texts, and studying the passage from one to the other, places this enterprise squarely in the domain of intertextuality or, more precisely, in one of its branches: transtextuality. In theory, text B results from text A through an operation of transformation. Thus when confronted with a “hypotext” and a “hypertext,” to use Gérard Genette’s terminology, it is possible to observe the nature of the variants that lead from one to the other.36 In the case of the Poétique musicale, imitation forms the basis for the transformation: Stravinsky first copied Suvchinsky’s outline in its entirety, reorganizing and fleshing it out somewhat. Then he replaced certain terms, and rephrased, added to, modified, and expanded the text. At the same time he reduced the number of lessons to five, adding an introductory lesson to make six in all—and explained ideas that Suvchinsky had touched on only briefly. Here are four examples of the types of “transfers” that took place between Suvchinsky’s outline (hypotext) and Stravinsky’s (hypertext):
HYPOTEXT
(SUVCHINSKY)
HYPERTEXT
(STRAVINSKY)
1) Development
[Selection from the second lesson: The Phenomenon of Music]
True musical experience. …
Musical speculation.
What is music is sounds organized as man’s conscious action. …
Personally, I am beginning to interest myself in the phenomenon of music as it emanates from the whole man, that is to say a man armed with all the resources of our senses, psychic faculties and intellectual means.
I declare above all that the phenomenon of music is a phenomenon of speculation … A speculation formed that is shaped by the elements of sound and time.
2) Clarification and Deletion
[Selection from the second lesson: The Phenomenon of Music]
The limits of the art of music.
The limits of the art of music: pure music and descriptive music.
The crisis of the unity of conscience and concepts.
[idea abandoned by Stravinsky]
[Selection from the third lesson: The Musical Métier]
Order.
Order and disorder. As a rule/As laws—exterior order/interior order.
3) Extrapolation
[Selection from the fifth lesson: Russian Music]
The two Russias. The revolution and the Russian Reaction. The two “disorders.”
The two Russias (the revolution and Russian conservatism—the two disorder). Glinka, Tchaikovsky, order; Scriabin, disorder (religious, political, ideological, psychological and musical). Mussorgsky—between the two.
4) Simplification
[Selection from On Performance]
The true meaning of music. The “self,” the “non-self”—and Being—creative monism.
The true meaning of music. Like all of man’s creative faculties it is a search for unity, communion, union with one’s neighbor and with Being (бытие). creative Monism.
It is difficult not to make an analogy here between the manner in which Stravinsky appropriates Suvchinsky’s concepts and his working method as a composer who reinvents music of the past. In the case of the Poétique musicale, however, the lender is listening to the borrower: Suvchinsky presented his theses to Stravinsky, who—while assimilating the theses and transcribing the concepts—brought them in line with his own point of view and then gave them back to his friend. Suvchinsky’s hasty pencil annotations give evidence of the dialogue between the two men, and clearly represent clarifications requested by the composer. Stravinsky thus emerges as the authority in this text, becoming the author of something that at first did not belong to him. This is precisely what constitutes the hypertextual relationship here.
Is this a case of Stravinsky borrowing, adapting, reorganizing, or perhaps even usurping Suvchinsky’s text? I would argue that the ontological foundations of this “transtextual transfer” are based on Suvchinsky’s having suggested a series of points of view to Stravinsky for him to defend. The concepts Suvchinsky laid out in his outline are for the most part consistent with convictions he expressed in numerous articles published over the previous twenty years. Through the Poétique, he entrusted these ideas to Stravinsky, making sure they would suit him. Suvchinsky custom-tailored these ideas for Stravinsky by combining them with certain ideas more specific to the composer: critics, order, the opposition between interpreter and performer, ideas of academicism and modernism. For his part, Stravinsky uses the planned terms without hesitating to move slightly beyond his partner’s rudimentary ideas (for example, when he extrapolates). The more I examine the situation, the more this seems to be a two-way exchange. The dialogue reflected in these manuscripts grows out of Suvchinsky’s sense of collaboration, trust, and generosity with Stravinsky, who—strengthened by his friend’s theses—offered the world his most important testimony on his concept of the art of music. The two-headed origin of the Poétique musicale explains its occasionally heterogeneous nature.
Roland-Manuel’s Manuscripts
The archives of Roland-Manuel, in the possession of his son, Claude Roland-Manuel, contain a file important to the Poétique’s production. In 2000, when Myriam Soumagnac’s new edition of the Poétique musicale was published, this file had been given to the Paul Sacher Foundation and become part of its Stravinsky collection. It contains Roland-Manuel’s small notebook and drafts of the lessons.37 Roland-Manuel used only the notebook’s first six pages: the first three dated from November 1938 and the last three from February 1939. Soumagnac reproduced these six pages in the appendix of her edition, even though they relate somewhat problematically to the Poétique.38 First, the notebook entries are explicitly dated from November 1938 and February 1939, before Stravinsky received the commission from Harvard to give the Norton lectures (which happened in March 1939), and before Stravinsky contacted Roland-Manuel about the Poétique that April. Second, Soumagnac incorrectly labels this document a “Conversation Book with Stravinsky,” thereby implying that it contains the transcription of a continuous dialogue with the composer in preparation for the Poétique.39 But the notebook obviously contains nothing more than notes Roland-Manuel took very carefully after a (likely unexpected) encounter with Stravinsky, probably in order not to forget several striking things he said. It is comparable in historic value to Stravinsky’s published interviews in how it transmits ideas articulated by Stravinsky on the nature of musical expression, silence, his attachment to France, and other topics. But it played no part in the Poétique’s development, and definitely did not contribute to its genesis.
The various manuscripts in Roland-Manuel’s hand that are of use in examining the origins of the Poétique are kept in a large file subdivided into six sub-folders corresponding to the six lessons, with the addition of a seventh sub-folder titled “Miscellany.” Although the sheets are not numbered in continuous fashion, the whole folder adds up to nearly two hundred pages, several samples of which will be described below. Filing the sheets by lesson was not an ideal strategy on the part of whoever did it, because in the final stages of work, numerous passages were shuffled among the Poétique’s chapters. A deep familiarity with the materials is required to perceive what they can reveal about Stravinsky’s and Roland-Manuel’s exchanges at Sancellemoz in the spring of 1939. Thorough study reveals that there are two types of notes, which I designate here with the labels “note-taking” and “written-up notes.”
Note-taking. Some pages of Roland-Manuel’s notes display very rapid writing, rather disorganized subject matter, and unfinished words and sentences. Their general graphical presentation—for example, margins listing toward the right—makes it plain that Roland-Manuel was hastily taking notes. These sheets are nearly always crossed out with a large red diagonal line, perhaps indicating that Roland-Manuel used the ideas and content contained within them. At other times, he circled in red the parts he did not use.
[Roland-Manuel rough draft, folio no.2, last paragraph]
Y
ou cannotCVI consciouslyCVII embrace
It’s him that will [illegible] follows process, notCVIII from the formalizing
the creative phenomenon without
considering it in a certain form.
It’s the process of logos.
don’t consider it outside of a form
that manifests existence.
I expect the word dogma
establishes the principle
to make you realize
That’s why it in no way usurps its function
natural defense mechanismCIX
Only Stravinsky and Roland-Manuel would be able to decode the chain of thought necessary to understand these notes. Without the context of their oral conversations, the notes remain partially incomprehensible. These are indeed “notes on conversations,” the immediacy of which reveals that Roland-Manuel probably took them as mnemonic aids while listening to Stravinsky speak. The composer’s presence is evident in the use of the first-person singular (“I expect”), which Roland-Manuel seems to transcribe directly, in a moment of enthusiasm, as if taking the words right out of Stravinsky’s mouth. Roland-Manuel’s process becomes quite evident when one compares the first person he used in his note-taking drafts with the impersonal tone of his finalized notes:40
ROLAND-MANUEL’S NOTE-TAKING
TEXT WRITTEN BY ROLAND-MANUEL
Distinction between natural and artificial benefits. I know it is not art that is sent to us from heaven through a bird’s song, and I know there is art even in the simplest modulation.
Stravinsky and His World Page 34