Assignment 4: Classical Influences on 20th Century Compositions

Classical Influences on 20th Century Compositions of Pulcinella & Symphony No. 1

In the early twentieth century, a new musical direction emerged known as neo-Classicism.  This period saw a revival of the traditional compositional styles, born during the classical period of the 1700s.  In a desire to break away from the dominating romantic trends pre-World War I, artists such as Igor Stravinsky and Sergei Prokofiev began resurrecting the traditions of the Manheim and Vienna schools of music; following in the footsteps of composers such as Haydn and Mozart (Hoffer 2010).   The aim of this essay is to compare influences of the Classical period on 20^th century compositions: Igor Stravinsky’s Pulcinella (1920) and Sergei Prokofiev’s Symphony No. 1 (1917).

Neo-Classicism sought to remove some of the complexities of the romantic, nineteenth century pieces, including reducing the overall length of compositions and restoring a more simplistic and homophonic nature (Messing: 1996).  Igor Stravinsky’s Pulcinella provides an excellent example of the fusion of these two compositional styles that occurred during the neo-Classic movement.

Composed as a ballet with only a single act, the musical form of Pulcinella goes against the rigidity of 18^th century forms such as the 4-part Symphony, the sonata and the concerto.   However, this modern twist is directly contrasted by the narrative compositional style, adopting a distinct theme of classical Neapolitan literature.

With melodic development telling a story of love, jealousy, grief and joy, Pulcinella demonstrates a number of other features that could be attributed to the neo-Classic revival.  Firstly, Stravinsky composed the ballet for a small chamber orchestra of just 33 players, contradicting the large orchestration of the nineteenth and early twentieth century such as Mahler’s Symphony No.8, dubbed the ‘Symphony of a Thousand’.  However, arguably the most notable classical influence on Stravinsky’s work comes in the thematic inspiration of the ballet itself.  Violin Online (n.d.) write that when commissioned, Stravinsky was asked to ‘re-invent’ compositions of the 18^th century, adding new material to create a ‘patchwork’ of new and old.   One such example is Stravinsky’s Pulcinella Overture, which takes themes from violinist Dominico Gallo’s Sonata No. 1 in G (1780).  When listening the two pieces side-by-side, the many similarities in melodic movement of both pieces could be heard clearly. However, Stravinsky’s lack of the continuo part, provided by the harpsichord in Gallo’s version, gives a distinct ‘modernised’ and more simplistic feel. 

Whilst listening to Pulcinella, I noticed a number of stylistic elements that contrast both classical and modern techniques.   In my opinion, Stravinsky seems to adopt a very homophonic approach, providing simple harmonies, underpinning solo instrumental sections.  However, unlike traditional 18^th compositions that would be lead by the 1^st violins, this piece seems to allow instruments from each family to ‘lead’ the orchestra.  For example the ‘Vivo’ section in the latter half of the ballet gives the leading role to the brass section, which mimics a comical and farcical colour.

The vocal lines written by Stravinsky seemed to be reminiscent of the libretto composed for Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice (1762), providing a recitative feel during ‘Mentre l’erbetta’ and the dramatic tones of an aria in ‘Se tu ma’mi’.   There also appears to be distinct polyphonic layers to the more choral sections of ‘Pupillette, fiannette diamore’, giving a rich a deep texture often explored during the ‘development’ section of an 18^th century symphony such as Mozart’s Symphony No.6 in F major (1767).  However, scored for Soprano, Tenor and Baritone, the vocal performances are a far cry from the high-pitched tones provided by Gluck’s castrato performers. 

The strong sense of repetition that can be heard within this composition is also typical when listening to pieces from the Classical era.  Throughout different sections Stravinsky has modulated motifs, moving them through a variety of moods and tempo to develop the music’s narrative abilities.   The range of dynamics, which varies greatly between instruments, provides yet another textural element.   However, unlike the subtler use of dynamics in 18^th century pieces, such as the second movement of Johan Stamitz Clarinet Concerto in B flat major (1755), Stravinsky has opted to use a very dramatic and tense contrast in dynamics at times.    

However, a contrasting and more modern technique comes in the structure of the piece.  Despite being split into 20 ‘sections’, Pulcinella was designed as a performance of one continuous piece of music (Huscher: n.d.).  This means that the end of each ‘section’, excluding the finale, ends with no form of cadence - often abruptly and sharply.  However, when listened to as one continuous piece, it carries the feel of a single over-arching cadence and sense of resolution. 

Whilst many elements of Pulcinella would not be out of place in 18^th century Manheim, I would suggest that it is Stravinsky’s use of slightly more unusual harmonies that brings his composition up-to-date.  For example, during the ‘Allegro – alla breve’ section, the tense and slightly dissonant oscillating effect provided by the strings seems to directly juxtapose the wind’s more gentle and melodic movement.

In contrast to Pulcinella’s, partially ‘borrowed’ score, Sergei Prokofiev chose to compose his own neo-Classical material, reminiscent of the earlier works of Haydn.   Prokofiev’s Symphony No. 1 (1917), often referred to as the Classical Symphony, adopts different compositional techniques, yet still remains focused on the ‘revival’ of the Classical school (Kovacs: 2013). 

Carpenter (n.d.) describes how Prokofiev composed the Classical Symphony using traditional scoring methods and a sense of economy, in line with the more classical techniques.   However, he argues that,

“The "Classical" Symphony is not really neo-Classical along the lines of contemporaneous works by Stravinsky, but rather a work of elegant simplicity that evokes the spirit of high Viennese Classicism filtered through the more adventurous sensibilities of Prokofiev's own musical language.”

The overall length of Prokofiev’s symphony, at less than 20 minutes in duration, is comparable to Haydn’s earlier symphonic compositions such as The London Symphony No. 97 in C major (1792), which is just under 30 minutes in length.  In addition, the four movements of Symphony No.1 are based upon the 18^th century structural developments of Johann Stamitz and the Manheim School.   This is evident in Prokofiev’s choice to compose an allegro-sonata first movement, a slower more lyrical 2^nd section, a distinct dance rhythm in the 3^rd section and close with a fast-paced movement. 

Much in keeping with the Classical style, Prokofiev presents a number of musical ideas in the opening movement; each of which are modulated and adapted through different keys to provide textural familiarity.   However, I feel that the sudden and dramatic shifts in tonal centre and dynamics provide a distinctly modern feel to the piece, backed up by the slightly polyphonic and dissonant harmonies. 

Whilst reading the score for Symphony No. 1, it is evident that Prokofiev opted to include a homophonic nature to his composition, reflective of musical practice during the 1700s.   However, much like my findings of Stravinsky’s Pulcinella, I feel that it is the inclusion of more modern harmonic material that underpins and updates the style of Prokofiev’s classical counterparts such as Haydn.    

The mood throughout this piece is in keeping with Haydn’s bright, slightly comical and lighthearted compositions such as Symphony No. 80 (1784).  However, the inclusion of slightly dissonant harmonies offers a more anxious and tense feeling.  In later sections, such as the last movement, it is clear that some of Beethoven’s 19^th century ideas of heroism bleed through.  However, despite these changes in moods, the modulation of themes and rhythmic momentum seems to somehow drive the piece forward – linking each section’s themes and ideas.

I feel that the first and last movements of Symphony No. 1 in particular carry a certain sense of melodic narrative seen in earlier works, such the score for Mozart’s Opera The Marriage of Figaro (1786).  In addition, Prokofiev’s ‘nod’ to his earlier counterparts is immediately obvious with his inclusion of the ‘Mannheim Rocket’, a compositional technique developed in 18^th Century Manheim, which sees a rapid ascension of the melodic line in the opening bars of the piece (Lindsay: 2011).  However, despite Prokofiev’s classical methodology, the composition makes heavy use of contrast, both in harmony, dynamics and rhythm, which brings a distinctly twentieth century ‘feel’.  This is particularly evident in the ‘Gavotte’ movement, which although based on a dance of the classical period, adopting the traditional A-B-A ternary form, provides a more ‘unstable’ rhythmic property, featuring dramatic and sudden dynamic and tonal changes that greatly vary from the classical mantle.

The ‘classical’ simplicity of Prokofiev’s score seems to be well hidden by the frequent use of repetition, which stands as both a modern and traditional feature.   Echoing and elongating motifs across instruments, for example, passing a melody from flute to oboe to bassoon in succession, Prokofiev offers not only a air of familiarity with the material, but also a delivers a seemingly complex, multi layered sound.   There are also a number of ambiguous cadences which contrast classical techniques.  Excluding the finale, which sees a slight ‘waltz’ rhythm to its powerful cadence, the first, second and third movements seem to provide a sense of anti-climax, perhaps to aid in the fluidity of the entire piece. In addition, the use of trills and quick triplet sections also provide a sense of depth and variation – bringing the past-dated 18^th century themes into modern day.

In conclusion, both Prokofiev and Stravinsky demonstrate a distinct fusion of both modern and classical works, but adopt very different methodology.  Whilst Stravinsky opted to gain inspiration from pre-existing material, Prokofiev’s fully original composition, draws significantly on the works of Haydn.   However, similarities can be drawn between their compositional styles.  Both composers seem to have adopted a sense of 18^th melody, underpinned by more modern harmonic processes, applying dissonance.  They both use dramatic and sudden changes in timbre, which is more in line with 19^th century ideas, and both decided to ‘re-shuffle’ the traditional 18^th musical form to suit their needs.

It is Stravinsky and Prokofiev’s exploration of musical form which lead me to question whether both composers, in their pursuit of neo-Classicism, were not only focused on the composition of traditional material, but were trying to emulate the psychological thinking of the Classical ‘school’ of music.    O’Rourke-Jones & Summers (2013) suggest that forms such as the symphony, sonata and concerto were developed with a strong sense of ensuring the music ‘held’ the attention of the audience.   It therefore stands to reason that Stravinsky’s choice to compose shorter versions of their classical counterparts, layered with dissonant textural elements, may have been in an effort to relate to the ever-shortening attention span of modern society.