Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Part I Origins and contexts
- Part II The works
- Part III Reception
- 9 Stravinsky conducts Stravinsky
- 10 Stravinsky as devil: Adorno's three critiques
- 11 Stravinsky in analysis: the anglophone traditions
- 12 Stravinsky and the critics
- 13 Composing with Stravinsky
- 14 Stravinsky and us
- Chronological list of works
- Notes
- Select bibliography
- Index
10 - Stravinsky as devil: Adorno's three critiques
from Part III - Reception
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2011
- Frontmatter
- Part I Origins and contexts
- Part II The works
- Part III Reception
- 9 Stravinsky conducts Stravinsky
- 10 Stravinsky as devil: Adorno's three critiques
- 11 Stravinsky in analysis: the anglophone traditions
- 12 Stravinsky and the critics
- 13 Composing with Stravinsky
- 14 Stravinsky and us
- Chronological list of works
- Notes
- Select bibliography
- Index
Summary
Introduction
Adorno's Philosophie der neuen Musik was published in 1949, at a decisive turning-point for music in the mid-twentieth century. In this highly influential book, Adorno put forward a dialectical reading of the New Music in the form of a critique of its two most extreme representatives, Schoenberg and Stravinsky. The effects were dramatic, providing a rallying cry for the generation of new composers emerging in the immediate post-war years, and who were to become associated both with the rejection of neoclassicism and with the espousal of the multiple serialism of the Darmstadt School. The reception of Adorno's critique by the two protagonists themselves was in some respects contrary to expectations. Schoenberg, who disliked Adorno, saw it primarily as an attack on himself, thus going directly against the general view, which regarded Adorno as the great advocate of the Second Viennese School. But at the same time Schoenberg also sprang to Stravinsky's defence, annoyed by Adorno's treatment of his old adversary. Stravinsky, on the other hand, remained silent – in public, at least – thus making it difficult to gauge the extent to which Adorno's critique of his music may have played any determining role in the composer's own spectacular change of direction in the early 1950s, when he himself abandoned neoclassicism and turned to serialism. This has, naturally enough, prompted speculation. Célestin Deliège, for instance, has argued:
Publicly, Stravinsky would make no mention of T.W. Adorno's criticism, but it is highly improbable that it could have left him indifferent, even if he was conscious of the weak points in the argument and disagreed with a philosophical approach whose materialistic tendencies could only disturb him … It has often been remarked that Stravinsky was very open to influence – at least, until he stepped into his study – and could not remain indifferent to a well-formulated argument. The acuity of his judgement warned him when the alarm bell really sounded.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Stravinsky , pp. 192 - 202Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2003
- 4
- Cited by