Está en la página 1de 10

Nanette Wu

21M.260

April 12, 2019

Stravinsky’s Story of the Solo Clarinet

Igor Stravinsky’s ​Three Pieces for Solo Clarinet​ (1919) is a three-movement work

written for unaccompanied clarinet in Bb and A. Composed during a transitional period of

writing miniatures between Stravinsky’s major phases of Russian ballets and Neoclassicist

works, this composition is unfortunately swept under the rug often—even claimed by Eric

Walter White to be “not very important in itself”.1 For that reason, the challenge of approaching

this somewhat “neglected” work lies in the difficulty of figuring out how to both play and

understand it. Oddly enough, the three pieces are extremely popular in solo performance, yet not

many are willing to analyze it, perhaps due to several parts of the work that lack clear rational

analysis. As such, this suggests a fundamental question: why were the three pieces put together

in the first place, and were they meant to be played in this particular order?

In the few formal analyses of the work, many draw connections of the three pieces to

L’Histoire du Soldat Suite​ (​The Soldier’s Tale​) due to the proximity of composition dates (1918

vs. 1919) and their shared “jazz influences [that] twist melodic lines into...sinuous

chromaticisms”.2 Additionally, the three pieces were composed for the sponsor of ​The Soldier’s

Tale​—Werner Reinhart (also an amateur clarinetist!)—as a “thank you” for his generosity.3

According to White, ​The Soldier’s Tale​ “demonstrated [Stravinsky’s] will and ability to discard

1
​White, E. W. (1948). ​Stravinsky: A critical survey, 1882-1946 ​(pp. 84). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
2
​White, ​Stravinsky: A critical survey, 8​ 3.
3
​White, ​Stravinsky: A critical survey, 8​ 3.
Wu 2

the Russian element in his music and embrace a more eclectic international idiom”, noting the

pieces as “essays in jazz portraiture” 4 and “portraits of improvisation”.5

In search of context clues for the reasoning behind the order of the three pieces, I chose to

dive deeper into ​The Soldier’s Tale​. What fascinated me was a striking similarity between Part

2’s ​Three Dances (Tango - Waltz - Ragtime)6 and the three pieces for clarinet. In the plot of the

three dances, the protagonist triumphantly marches into the chambers of a princess, who had

been extremely ill and could not be awoken. He starts to play a tune on solo violin, which

miraculously resurrects the princess during the tango; the piece starts with the violin yearning at

a lower register, which transitions into a peppy waltz (elaborated with ribbon-like clarinet

motives), ending in ragtime, full of energy, fun, and excitement.7

As a result, the story of the three dances spurred the idea of an underlying plotline in the

three pieces, suggesting “character development” of the clarinet solo. Therefore, through the

unity of form, affect, and pitch, the three pieces are, in fact, meant to be played together—to craft

a “story” of awakening that results in an energetic flourishing.

Like the plotline of modern stories, the three pieces, when considered as a whole, have an

underlying development, cultivated by the overall growth in speed and energy. In terms of

musical parameters, the work progresses upwards by reaching higher registers in pitch, grows

louder in dynamic from “always soft” to “always loud”,8 and alludes to an increase in tempo with

4
​White, E. W. (1979). ​Stravinsky, the composer and his works​ (pp. 67). Berkeley: University of California Press.
5
​White, ​Stravinsky: A critical survey, 8​ 3.
6
​O'Hare, Rachel. “Princess and Soldier- The 3 Dances- The Soldier's Tale.” YouTube, YouTube, 18 Apr. 2012,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QBjKKdkvEs.
7
​L'Histoire du soldat. (2019, March 08). Retrieved April 12, 2019, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Histoire_du_soldat
8
​Stravinsky, Igor. (1919). ​Three Pieces for Solo Clarinet​. J. & W. Chester Retrieved March 17, 2019 from
https://imslp.org/wiki/3_Pieces_for_Solo_Clarinet_(Stravinsky%2C_Igor)
Wu 3

faster metronome marks and smaller rhythmic subdivisions. In order to draw commonalities for

elements of consistency, the three pieces share an overall form of ABA’ with a coda, as well as

the use of untraditional pitch sets and modes—pentatonic scales, chromaticism, and

bitonality—that veer away from the constraints of traditional music and towards musical

freedom. As such, Stravinsky shows character development from more reserved in the first piece,

to free-flowing in the second, and finally, energetic and assertive in the final

movement—portraying a shift from introversion to extroversion, and a sense of awakening and

freedom.

The first piece opens the story in a hazy, mysterious trance by exploiting “the lower of

[the A clarinet] in a mood of meditative tranquility”.9 The origin of the movement is told like

oral tradition, passed on word-of-mouth among clarinetists, describing a saxophonist noodling

between sets at a jazz concert that Stravinsky attended. Understanding the context helps with

creating the ambiance that Stravinsky was going for, allowing performers to help themselves and

their audiences embody the mellow, introspective feeling of the piece.

To capture this mood, Stravinsky uses the untraditional choice of the written F#

pentatonic pitch set (in concert A, F#-G#-B-C#-D#) in the clarinet’s lower register, which

produces a dark, woody, and rich color. By choosing the A clarinet in this piece, Stravinsky not

only gets an extra half step lower range to work with compared to its Bb counterpart, but he also

gets to take advantage of the A clarinet’s less focused, hollow timbre; the slight fuzziness of the

tone, in addition to the “sempre piano e molto tranquillo” (always soft and very tranquil) stylistic

marking, contributes to the mysterious atmosphere of the opening.

9
​White, ​Stravinsky, the composer and his works​, 282.
Wu 4

Piece 1 A B A’ Coda

Measures 1-9 10-21 21-28 29-30

Introduced in the lower part of the clarinet’s lower register, the opening begins with the

main motive (m.1-3) that sinks down to an F#, developing a tonal center with the pitch set. The

pentatonic scale is explored in leaps, giving the piece a feeling of uncertainty in its mystery.

Subsequent iterations of the motive reach lower notes of the instrument until it hits the lowest

note in the clarinet’s range (F in m.5, E in m.8), which can be interpreted as a figurative dive into

the darkness, going “deeper” into the moody and dreamy atmosphere. Section A ultimately leads

to a cadence-like resolution to D#, which is also found in the pentatonic pitch set.

Section B opens with a return to the highest note of the movement, G#, but doesn’t stay

here for long. A different descending motive (m.14) is introduced—each occurrence of the

motive is separated by breath marks and legatos. Continual repetition of the motives creates a

static feeling of getting stuck and lost in one’s thoughts, further contributing to the overall affect

of the piece. It’s also interesting to note in this section that the motive in measure 18-19 is one of

the few, in the first piece, that uses flat accidentals. In fact, Stravinsky almost entirely uses sharp

accidentals in this piece, which doesn’t have much significance when considered by itself, but

creates contrast and draws similarities with the accidental choices of the other pieces (the second

piece primarily uses flat accidentals, the third piece uses both flats and sharps).

Finally, the motives from A are reintroduced in A’, played with a familiar pensive

quality. At measure 28, there is a “fake-out ending” to the mysterious F# tonal center that almost

fades to nothingness. But, the real ending occurs in the coda at measure 29 at the first accent of

the piece (on D), suddenly played ​poco piu forte e poco piu mosso.​ The last Eb is held “lunga”,
Wu 5

or longer than noted, with a fermata: one of the few flats in the entire piece foreshadows and

transitions to the second piece that begins a half step lower on D.

The second piece presents a new extroverted and free character, developing the plot by

contrasting the affect and pitch of the introspective first movement. Stravinsky introduces this in

the clarinet’s altissimo register, which sounds brighter and less distant, opening up the sound as

it leaves the lower register. The meterless, measureless movement unties the music from a strict

metric structure “in an improvisatory vein"; the lack of barring is not meant to suggest real jazz

improvisations, but “merely portraits” of them.10 Furthermore, it was difficult to extrapolate the

specific pitch set used in this piece due to the extensive chromaticism used in the fast-flowing

arpeggios. When played at the faster tempo, these arabesques just sound like a single continual

changing sound rather than distinct notes, which contributes to the perceived improvisation. The

concept of time is also lost in the inconsistent grouping of notes (i.e. groups of 3’s at 1; 7’s and

8’s at 5; 6’s at 6; 9’s at 7). Instead of fitting mathematically accurate beats in measures, notes are

rhythmically divided into longer phrases by breath marks. These breath-long phrases, along with

unusual rhythms, allowed Stravinsky to create “artificial” freedom within the ambiguity of time.

Piece 2 A B A’ Coda

“Measures” 1-10 11-16 17-19 20

The second piece begins with an “ebullient opening” filled with busy thematic

ribbon-like motives, fluttering up and down across the range of the entire instrument.11 To a

casual listener, they may sound like a fury of notes lacking apparent regularity. However, the

choice of pitches and rhythms are clearly intentional, in order to give the impression of

10
​White, ​Stravinsky, the composer and his works,​ 282.
11
​White, ​Stravinsky, the composer and his works​, 282.
Wu 6

improvisation. “Measure” 1 contains sixteenths grouped in threes, which entail a dissonance of

adjacent notes—the natural note and its flatted form—through the use of A/Ab and B/Bb. The

clashing chromaticism drives the piece further “off-script”, compared to traditional classical

melodies, and adds to the improvisational nature of the movement. Abruptly, there is a halt in the

flow with long eighth notes and quarter notes (2), breaking the momentum of the ribbon-like

motives. These contrasting sections of driving forward and braking continues through section A,

which ends in fermata on the highest note of the piece, G.

The B section from “measure” 11 veers away from the material in A as the dynamic

drops to pianissimo. Often characterized by my teacher as “the hoppy section” because of its

large leaps and whimsical “blippy” appoggiaturas, the rhythms simplify to straight

eighths—some cut short to clipped sixteenths. The bouncy “blips” foreshadow the third piece,

but more significantly, depict the unpredictable direction that improvisation can lead the

performer, or in this case, the composer.

Just like the first piece, section A’ reintroduces material from A, with unrestrained and

flashy runs, and concludes in a coda (20) to foreshadow subsequent material. The final motive is

played much slower, ​sombrer le son ritardando (poco)​, which means to sink and darken the

sound while slowing down—a marking that is frequently used in the third movement—to set up

a longer pause (for the performer to switch clarinets) and transition to new material.

The final piece concludes the story at a climax in the style of a scherzo, full of energy,

fun, and jazziness—contrasting the timid and improvisational nature of the previous movements.

During this transitional phase in composition, Stravinsky experimented with the idea—later

claimed to have extracted from Russian folk verse—of the “moveable accent, which could be
Wu 7

played off against the natural accents of speech…to make yet an extra rhythmic tier”, and

became a central feature in this movement.12 Inspired by themes from the ragtime of ​The

Soldier’s Tale​ to explicitly pay homage to its generous sponsor, the third piece is played with

unrelenting energy, “forte d’un bout a l’autre from beginning to end”. This piece’s is found

exclusively in the upper register of the Bb clarinet, which has a more focused tone, to emphasize

the progression of the plotline. Instead of exclusively using flats or sharps, Stravinsky uses both

simultaneously in a motive, which creates an unusual sense of bimodality, though it is hard to tell

what his exact intention was.

Piece 3 A B A’ Coda

Measures 1-25 25-42 42-57 57-61

Although the piece returns to metered music, the complexities of analysis continues with

unusual time signatures, apparent from section A of the piece. In order to smoothly transition out

of the lengthy break between the second and third piece, section A begins with unaccented notes

and legatos. However, almost everything that follow is performed with percussive

articulation—short, firm, and exact—to accentuate strong accents that guide the rapid

syncopation throughout the movement. Each “blip”, or sets of notes connected by a legato, often

begins with an accent and ends with a short, clipped staccato. Especially when played on weaker

beats, these strongly accented “blips” creates a jazzy feel in the piece (m. 8-9).

In section B, Stravinsky clearly emphasizes syncopation by the use of the moveable

accent through different motives (series of accented sixteenths linked by legatos). In measure 29,

12
Walsh, S. (2001, January 01). ​Stravinsky, Igor​. Grove Music Online. Ed. Retrieved 21 Mar. 2019, from
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/
9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000052818.
Wu 8

the third beat is continuously emphasized (written Db’s), with straight accents played on strong

beats. However, the straight accents are immediately followed by a contrasting measure 33,

where the accents are now syncopated, bringing back the jazzy feel of section A.

Just like the previous pieces, A’ quotes the theme of A, but written a fifth lower, perhaps

to dial back the energy prior to the explosive ending at the coda at measure 57, which is marked

louder than the rest of the piece, and written longer than the codas of the other two pieces. The

varying articulations—the accent, legato, and staccato—group the notes in a way that injects

continuous energy to the end, until the music halts at a fermata (m. 61). Inferences based on the

endings in the first two pieces sets up an expectation that the piece ends with holding a note to

niente. Like the ending of a good book, Stravinsky ends the piece unexpectedly, writing an

abrupt G-to-Bb blip, finishing with a lighthearted, fun, and conclusive final note.

Beyond the analysis of the work, it is also important to note its complexities in

performance. This composition is commonly found in standard audition repertoire, but despite its

deceivingly short length, there are considerable challenges in making this work sound simple,

fluid, and personal due to the rigidity of Stravinsky’s instructions. To convey certain affects in

each piece, he demands that “the breath marks, accents, and metronome marks indicated in the 3

pieces should be strictly adhered to”.13 The breath marks, scattered generously throughout the

three pieces, denote specific phrases as he intended them to be perceived. Breath is a very

“human” concept—it allows the performer to determine how pauses should be “played” (i.e.,

abruptly, gently)—but they can only be interpreted to the extent that Stravinsky allows within the

restricted structure of the pieces. Furthermore, Stravinsky explicitly outlines choices of barring

13
​Stravinsky, ​Three Pieces for Solo Clarinet​, IMSLP, pp. 1.
Wu 9

(or lack of, in piece 2), meter, and articulation (prevalent in piece 3), to enforce specific

subdivisions of phrases, or a purposeful lack of them, to create distinct effects within the

continuous stream of music. Despite the fine granularity of details, the toughest part is to not

only juggle the subtleties simultaneously but also maintain the work’s intended affects and

plotline at a higher level. If executed well, the specific details become abstracted away, resulting

in a seemingly effortless performance (easier said than done, of course).

By developing a solo melodic line strong enough to stand without metrical and harmonic

accompaniment, Stravinsky shows how rich a miniature of three short pieces in one instrument

can be.14 Composed during a transitional period of Stravinsky’s stylistic choices, this work

illustrates efficiency in economical techniques, which coincides with his developing interest in

“great melodic freedom”.15 Due to the lack of sufficient academic critique of the piece, it was

sometimes difficult to form rational analysis, which led to a macroscopic analysis to determine

whether the three pieces were intended to be performed together. Some might argue that, because

each piece makes a distinct contribution in character to the overall narrative, there’s nothing

particularly wrong about playing them independently. But this argument could be applied to any

multi-movement composition if looked at from the surface-level. However, by keeping

consistencies of form and unusual pitch sets, while showing progressive narrative development

in affect by using contrasting clarinet registers, dynamics, and tempos, Stravinsky arguably did

intend for the movements to be played together, in the specified order. Though implicit, the

patterning of the work is, in fact, cumulative: each piece builds up to the next, and together, craft

an intense, complex story through only a solo clarinet.

14
​White, ​Stravinsky: A critical survey, ​84.
15
​White, ​Stravinsky: A critical survey, ​84.
Wu 10

Works Cited

L'Histoire du soldat. (2019, March 08). Retrieved April 12, 2019, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Histoire_du_soldat

O'Hare, Rachel. “Princess and Soldier- The 3 Dances- The Soldier's Tale.” ​YouTube,​

YouTube, 18 Apr. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QBjKKdkvEs.

Stravinsky, Igor. (1919). ​Three Pieces for Solo Clarinet.​ J. & W. Chester Retrieved

March 17, 2019 from https://imslp.org/wiki/3_Pieces_for_Solo_Clarinet_(Stravinsky%2C_Igor)

Stravinsky, Igor. ​Three Pieces for Clarinet.​ Performance by Fredrik Fors. On ​Black Bird

- sort fugl,​ 2L, 2009, streaming audio, Spotify,

https://open.spotify.com/album/44hjYerNTb6xk00

GdSUGi1?si=HPF_k3KVSaqgvZf27ruWQg.

Walsh, S. (2001, January 01). Stravinsky, Igor. Grove Music Online. Ed. Retrieved 21

Mar. 2019, from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/

9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000052818.

White, E. W. (1948). ​Stravinsky: A critical survey, 1882-1946.​ Mineola, NY: Dover

Publications.

White, E. W. (1979). ​Stravinsky, the composer and his works.​ Berkeley: University of

California Press.

También podría gustarte