Kermit-Canfield 1

Mechanical Music: Igor Stravinsky and the Player Piano

Introduction

Stravinsky’s Étude pour pianola (1917) is an intriguing piece, and one that has not been

given much thought by the scholarly community.1 It is interesting, because it is written for

reproducing piano, was not commissioned, and is both predictive of Stravinsky’s appropriation

of the rag idiom and backwards looking to his Russian period through the use of ostinatos and

non-developing blocks. A short work, the Étude pour pianola fits perfectly into Stravinsky’s

compositional output just a few years before his turn to neoclassicism. Later in life, Stravinsky

adapted the Étude for orchestra as the fourth movement of his Orchestral études (1928), entitled

“Madrid.”

In this paper, I will discuss the inception of Stravinsky’s relationship with the pianola, his

only solo composition for the instrument, and that piece’s later orchestration. Before we dive

into Stravinsky’s discovery of the pianola, I will first describe the instrument’s history and

technical abilities. I will then explain Stravinsky’s interaction with the mechanical piano—from

his introduction to the instrument in 1912 through the abandonment of his pianola transcriptions

of his ballets in the 1930’s. I will argue that Stravinsky began writing for pianola for two main

reasons—first, for financial reasons, second, as a way to remove variability from performances.

I will then provide an analysis of the Étude pour Pianola followed by a comparison with the

1928 orchestrated edition. Finally, I will offer some opinions about what Stravinsky might

think—had he lived today—about modern day reproducing piano-inspired technologies.

1 As Maureen Carr points out in her forthcoming book, perhaps the Étude is not studied

because the score is virtually unknown, see Maureen Carr, After the Rite: Stravinsky’s Path to Neoclassicism from 1914 to 1925 (Oxford University Press), Chapter 4, page 1.

Kermit-Canfield 2

Pianola History

The notion for the player piano actually predates the invention of the instrument by

several centuries.2 The basic concept is for music to be stored in a manner that it can be later

recreated or realized by the instrument. A set of church bells is a prime example of this model.

In addition to a mechanism for keeping and displaying time (the clock), a second apparatus is

responsible for ringing the bells, and thus realizing a short musical melody stored on pinned

barrels, in the correct order every quarter hour. Other early automated instruments included the

barrel organ and various types of music boxes. The first automatic playing piano was the barrel

piano, created around the end of the eighteenth century.3 Early mechanical pianos used a variety

of crude methods for storing the music such as pinned barrels. It was not until 1842 that

perforated paper rolls were used as the storage medium. The music is stored in the following

manner: along the width of the roll holes are punched that correspond to pitch and along the

length of the roll durations are recorded. Thus, a longer note will require a longer length hole

(see Figure 1). Piano rolls are either produced with a special machine that records the

performance of a live musician directly onto a roll or by copy editors who hand punch the rolls.4

As Rex Lawson, a concert pianolist, points out, these rolls are often created by unskilled

2 The names “player piano,” “reproducing piano,” and “autopiano” are all synonyms for

the same instrument. The term “pianola,” although often colloquially used to name any reproducing piano, referrers to a specific model of player piano invented in 1895 by E.S. Votey and later produced by the Aeolian corporation. See Frank Holland, “Pianola,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online (2012).

3 Arthur Ord-Hume, “Player Piano,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online (2007). 4 Stravinsky made a few recordings of his piano works on these machines, but most of his

pianola scores were hand-punched by copy editors.

Kermit-Canfield 3

Figure 1: Stylized fragment of a piano roll showing how the X-axis represents pitch from low to high and the Y-axis represents time. The roll is pulled through the reproducing piano and notes are triggered where there are holes in the paper.

workers, and the resulting rolls contain little or no musical interpretation.5

Early score realization was not particularly good either. Some early attempts were unable

to produce long sustained sounds—instead they repeatedly struck long notes yielding a tremolo

effect. Most early reproducing pianos were clumsy and clunky, and did not sound very good.

Over the years, magnetic and pneumatic technologies improved piano roll performance.6 The

first commercially successful roll operated pianos became available between 1895 and 1897.

5 Rex Lawson, “What Is a Concert Pianolist?,” Rex Lawson - Concert Pianolist,

http://www.rexlawson.com/index.html?contents.html&0. 6 The developments of technologies that improved player piano construction and

performance are beyond the scope of this paper. For a more detailed discussion of player piano development, see “History of the Pianola: An Overview,” The Pianola Institute, http://www.pianola.org /history/history.cfm; “The Reproducing Piano: An Overview,” The Pianola Institute, http://www.pianola.org/reproducing/reproducing.cfm; and Arthur Ord-Hume, “Player Piano”.

Kermit-Canfield 4

One of these instruments, the Aeolian company's "pianola," became the gold standard for

reproducing pianos worldwide.7

How the Pianola Works8

Most pianolas are played by an operator, called a pianolist. While the controls on

different models and makes of reproducing piano differ slightly, I will describe one standard

configuration. Most instruments operate using suction, which is supplied by two foot pedals.

There is a mechanism to prevent the winding of the roll from becoming erratic, making the foot

pedals mostly responsible for controlling dynamics. As the feet are occupied with the pedals

where the sustain and soft pedals would be on a normal piano, these controls are relocated to be

operated by the hands, along with a tempo lever used to add rubato to the performance. Most

pianolas also contain a split in the pneumatic mechanism, usually between E4 and F4. These are

connected to two more levers, which allow different dynamic levels between the treble and bass

of the instrument. Another lever controls whether the instrument plays the roll forwards or

rewinds the roll. Two final controls, the “Thermodist” and “Metrostyle,” were originally

invented by the Aeolian company, and are fancier and more sophisticated controls for adding

accents and realizing a prerecorded tempo respectively.

7 Rex Lawson, Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring Petrushka (New York: Nimbus, 1991), 4.

8 I rely heavily on Rex Lawson’s description of what it is a pianolist does as he has over forty years of experience performing with pianolas, see Lawson, “What Is a Concert Pianolist?”.

Kermit-Canfield 5

Stravinsky and the Pianola9

Stravinsky's relationship with the pianola lasted about fifteen years, from 1915–30.10

Although he only wrote one piece for solo pianola, the Étude pour pianola (1917), he was

commissioned to transcribe all of his works for the instrument. From 1921–30, Stravinsky lived

in the Paris Pleyel factory, where he was also granted a workshop.11 Stravinsky's first interaction

with the pianola probably came on December 12, 1912, when Stravinsky was visiting

Schoenberg in Berlin for a performance of Pierrot Lunaiere in Chorlain Saal, where many

mechanical instruments were on display.12 Lawson writes that although Stravinsky may have

started thinking about writing for mechanical instruments at this time, he did not seriously

consider the pianola until his first visit to Aeolian Hall in August, 1914 for a demonstration of

the pianola.13

Stravinsky probably considered the pianola as a solo instrument for several reasons.

First, it can reproduce rhythms with impeccable precision. Moreover, in addition to its

metronomic qualities, the pianola can produce consistent sounds. For example, if a pianist

strikes a single note twenty times, there will be perceivable differences in the length, loudness,

9 Stravinsky referred to all reproducing instruments (including organs, music boxes,

pianos, etc.) as pianolas—including models made by the Aeolian Company’s rivals. For a complete list of known Stravinsky piano rolls, see Rex Lawson, “Stravinsky and the Pianola (Part 2),” Pianola Journal 2 (1989): 10–16.

10 Mark McFarland, “Stravinsky and the Pianola: A Relationship Reconsidered,” Revue De Musicologie 97, no. 1 (2011): 85; and Lawson, “Stravinsky and the Pianola (Part 2),” 5. 11 Pleyel et Cie (“Pleyel and Company”) is a piano company that was instrumental in pianola development and manufacturing in France, see McFarland, “Stravinsky and the Pianola: A Relationship Reconsidered,” 85. 12 Ibid., 88. 13 Lawson, Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring and Petrushka, 6.

Kermit-Canfield 6

and consequentially, the timbre of each note. A reproducing piano can be much more precise, as

the mechanical parts ensure the hammer hits the piano strings at the same velocity each time.

Second, the pianola can perform music that humans could not otherwise perform. It is not

limited to ten simultaneous notes, nor constrained to traditional chord spacing. As Stravinsky's

music is both rhythmically and harmonically challenging to perform, the pianola seems to be the

perfect musician. Edwin Evans writes that the pianola does not create new timbres; it just allows

a composer to exceed the limitations of human performers.14

Beyond the pianola's capacity to play more accurately than a human, Stravinsky turned to

the pianola for financial reasons. In 1915, the Orchestrelle Company [later the Aeolian

Company] expressed interest in producing piano rolls of the Rite of Spring and Petrushka.15

Stravinsky tried to negotiate a price for these rolls through 1916, but at this time he was

unsuccessful.16 Instead, he turned his attention to producing an original work for reproducing

piano.

An Original Composition: Étude pour pianola17

14 Edwin Evans, “Pianola Music,” Musical Times 62, no. 945 (November 1921): 763.

15 Rex Lawson, “Étude Pour Pianola by Igor Stravinsky,” Pianola Journal 5 (1993): 5. 16 McFarland, “Stravinsky and the Pianola,” 90–91. 17 Sketches for the Étude are located in sketchbook V housed at the Stravinsky Collection

of the Paul Sacher Stiftung (PSS), pages 8–33 (microfilm 123, frames 215–237), along with an early continuity sketch (microfilm 217, frames 511–528). A fair copy of the score from the Robert Craft Collection is at the PSS, and a photocopy is housed at the Paul Jacob’s collection at the New York Public Library. The copyright (1979) to the study score, first published in the Pianola Journal (volume 5, pages 7–22), is owned by Boosey and Hawkes.

The score for “Madrid,” from the Orchestral Études, is published by Boosey and Hawkes (1928, revised 1952). A photocopy of the fair copy is housed at the British National Library.

Kermit-Canfield 7

Stravinsky completed the score Étude pour pianola on September 10th, 1917.18 He hoped

to retain the copyright for the Étude by writing only for mechanical piano, and attempted to sell

the roll to the Orchestrelle Company for fifty percent of the profit of each sale.19 The

Orchestrelle Company flatly refused Stravinsky's offer, claiming that it was not optimal for

either the Company or Stravinsky.20 Eventually, Stravinsky conceded and sold the score for 500

Swiss francs, a price the Orchestrelle Company promised they would never again match. 21

Stravinsky later learned that his impressions of copyright law were wrong—by publishing his

work for pianola, other manufacturers would have the right to produce rolls of the work for a

minimal fee.22 It is probable that Stravinsky came up with the idea for a work involving pianola

on his own, but a letter from Edwin Evans asking several European composers to write for

pianola sped up his progress.23 Upon receiving Evans’s request for a pianola work, Stravinsky

wrote to Evans to say he was almost finished with a solo work for the instrument.

Soulima Stravinsky arranged a four-hands version of Madrid in 1951, which is published

by Boosey and Hawkes. Dr. Maureen Carr was instrumental in helping me locate materials related to the Étude. I

used her transcriptions of sketches, and the beginning of the fourth chapter to her forthcoming book After the Rite: Stravinsky’s Path to Neoclassicism from 1914 to 1925 covers the Étude.

18 Lawson, “Étude Pour Pianola by Igor Stravinsky,” 5. 19 Ibid. 20 PSS. Microfilm 109, frame 198, correspondence between the Orchestrelle Company

and Igor Stravinsky’s lawyer, Philippe Dunant, dated August 24, 1917, McFarland, “Stravinsky and the Pianola: A Relationship Reconsidered,” 91, n37.

21 Lawson, “Étude Pour Pianola by Igor Stravinsky,” 5. 22 McFarland, “Stravinsky and the Pianola: A Relationship Reconsidered,” 92. 23 Edwin Evans (1874–1945) was an English music critic who knew Diaghilev and

Stravinsky well, see H.C. Colles, et al., “Evans, Edwin,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/09101.

Kermit-Canfield 8

Example 1: Transcription of melodic fragments off a postcard sent from Ansermet. Published in Claude Tappolet, Correspondence Ansermet—Stravinsky 1914–1967 (Geneva: Georg Editions, 1990), 61, reprinted in Maureen Carr, After the Rite: Stravinsky’s Path to Neoclassicism from 1914 to 1925, Chapter 4, page 2.

The musical influences for the Étude come from Mediterranean music of Madrid and

Naples. Stravinsky visited Madrid in 1916 with the Ballet Russes and enjoyed the various street

music he heard.24 Later, in April 1917, Stravinsky received a postcard from Ernst Ansermet in

Naples with a phrase of Spanish dance music scrawled on it, of which Stravinsky used as

inspiration for a motivic idea (See Example 1).25 Stravinsky wanted to give the impression of

being bombarded with melodies and sounds of a busy street scene, and for this reason quotes

folk songs.

24 Lawson, “Étude Pour Pianola by Igor Stravinsky,” 5. 25 Claude Tappolet, Correspondence Ansermet—Stravinsky 1914–1967 (Geneva: Georg

Editions, 1990), 61, reprinted in Carr, After the Rite, Chapter 4, page 2.

Kermit-Canfield 9

Abandoning the Pianola

Although the first draft of Stravinsky’s ballet Les noces (1923) had parts for four

pianolas, he abandoned writing for the instrument shortly after writing the Étude. Stravinsky

claimed that he removed the pianola parts from Les noces due to the difficulty of synchronizing

four mechanical instruments with other musicians and dancers. However, Walsh claims that

there is no evidence that there was a problem with coordinating mechanical instruments.26 In his

revisions, Stravinsky also removed the cimbaloms and harmonium parts. The removal of such

instruments, the pianolas included, would have made the work easier to perform.

A more persuasive argument for why Stravinsky deserted the pianola comes from

Ansermet’s review of the pianola’s capabilities presented in a letter to Stravinsky in June 1919.27

At this point, Stravinsky had not yet heard the piano roll for the Étude pour pianola.28 Ansermet

wrote that the pianola lacked the mechanical strength he had expected, the rhythmic accuracy

was compromised by the performer’s ability to add rubato, and the pianola’s weak ability to

produce low frequencies. The weaknesses of the instrument resonated strongly with Stravinsky

and encouraged him to cease writing for it.

The Aeolian company stopped producing classical music rolls in the early 1930s,

including canceling Stravinsky’s contract to transfer his entire catalogue for piano roll. A few

26 Stephen Walsh, Stravinsky: A Creative Spring, Russia and France, 1882-1934 (New

York: Knopf, 1999), 622. 27 Claude Tappolet, Correspondence Ansermet—Stravinsky 1914–1967 (Geneva: Georg

Editions, 1990), 115–17, reprinted in McFarland, “Stravinsky and the Pianola,” 94–95. 28 Stravinsky did not hear his piece until 1921.

Kermit-Canfield 10

Figure 2: This diagram shows the nature of block form in Stravinsky’s Étude pour pianola. The numbers along the top represent measure number and the lines below demonstrate how the blocks are juxtaposed and superimposed. The blocks marked in grey are subsidiary to the larger blocks that contain them.

years later, they went out of business entirely due to the popularity of the more versatile

phonograph.29

Analysis

The musical material for the Étude appears in non-developing blocks. Maureen Carr

describes the forms as being progressive, as Stravinsky continuously juxtaposes and

superimposes melodic fragments over several different ostinato patterns.30 In this respect, the

Étude resembles Stravinsky’s writing from his earlier Russian period. Other aspects of the

works, such as the multiple ascending scales and other melodic fragment foreshadow textures

that will later appear in Concertino (1920) and the Octet for Winds (1919–1923).31 In this work,

29 Always trying to be on the cutting edge of technology, Stravinsky was among the first

to embrace the phonographic recording medium. 30 Carr, After the Rite: Stravinsky’s Path to Neoclassicism from 1914 to 1925, Chapter 4,

page 5. 31 Ibid., Chapter 4, Page 6.

Kermit-Canfield 11

there are five distinct blocks, the first three of which are presented quite clearly as cohesive units

before various elements from the blocks start getting overlayed, (see Figure 2).32

The first block (mm. 1–6), although clear cut in its presentation, shows the complexity of

Stravinsky’s composition (see Example 2A). Written on three staves, Stravinsky writes three

“formulaic” lines—all using the same rhythm—that mesh together to create the first texture. On

the top staff, he writes a single chord (G-sharp – E – A), which is repeated for the first five

measures of the block before cadencing on E after an idiomatic “turn figure.”33 The middle staff

contains a neighboring figure presented in octaves cadencing on F-sharp. The last staff contains

a neighboring figure presented in fifths, cadencing on E with the “turn” from the highest voice.

Its harmonic motion is limited to two chords (D and E) and changes more slowly than the octave

neighboring figure.

The second block (mm. 7–10) acts as a cadential idea, as it comes back in its entirety at

the end of almost every section. Stravinsky presents multiple ascending lines in steady sixteenth

notes.34 Although not necessarily starting on the tonic pitches, he layers B, D, and F major

scales with a chromatic scale starting on G and octatonic arpeggiations that include the tonics of

the major scales (see Example 2B). This block concludes with the rhythm from the “turn figure”

cadencing on E-flat.

32 Ibid., Chapter 4, page 6.

33 I call this “turn figure” idiomatic, as it returns throughout the piece as a consistent

element. The term “turn figure” comes from Maureen Carr, and describes Stravinsky’s use of a triplet figure containing an upper neighbor that functions cadentially and is derived from a rhythmic pattern from Ansermet’s postcard (see note 25).

34 Some of the scales cross from one staff to another. It is important to note that although written on up to six staves, this work is written for a single instrument, and a mechanical one at that. When looking at the score, it is convenient that the editor has spread the notes out over six staves and used many enharmonically spelled notes (which the pianola is immune to misreading).

Kermit-Canfield 12

Example 2: First 10 measures of Etude pour pianola by Igor Stravinsky. 2A is block 1 and 2B is block 2.

In the third block (mm. 11–15) we start understanding the importance of Stravinsky’s

ostinatos. There are three ostinatos: the lowest voice alternates between F and B-flat, the middle

voice arpeggiates through D – A – G-sharp – E, and the upper voice oscillates between E-flat and

A-flat. These ostinatos are summarized in Table 1. On top of these repeated patterns, we hear a

melodic fragment, which is immediately sounded a second time and expanded. In the second

presentation of the third block (mm. 19–25), the melody is further expanded.

Kermit-Canfield 13

Table 1: Three ostinatos from block 3.

The fourth block (mm. 26–44) is slightly longer and more complex than previously heard

blocks. Unified by a four measure (17 eighth note) bass ostinato, we are presented with a faster

changing texture. This section sounds improvisatory, and acts as the first development section.

The form of this block can be further subdivided into fragments of music that are spliced

together (see Figure 3). While it may be composed of many juxtaposed and superimposed

chunks of music, upon closer inspection we see that some of the blocks are being developed. For

example, the first fragment of music [which I call A] (28–32) is a motive centered around E-flat,

decorated by an F and concluded with the turn figure. This is accompanied by ostinatos

consisting of a B-flat trill and two dyads, the first composed of an A-flat and G, the second of D-

flat and A-natural. This fragment is interrupted by a second fragment [let's call it B] (32–35)

composed of a decorated descending scale and short motive concluded with the turn figure and

accompanied by a three eight note om pah pah ostinato. When the first fragment comes back, it

is heard expanded and up an octave. Additionally, its accompanying ostinatos have been

expanded, adding both variety and a hint of development, instead of being heard as a direct

repetition. Measures 40–46 contain scale fragments that are reminiscent of fragment B. On the

last eighth note of measure 45, chords from block one return, transposed down a major second.

Kermit-Canfield 14

Figure 3: Summary of material from the fourth block of Étude pour pianola.

Starting in measure 47, it's seems as if block one has returned in a fuller texture. It is twice

interrupted, first by a measure of the ostinato from A, second by a hint of the ornamented chords

of B. For the last five measures of the block, the bass ostinato changes in conjunction with

fragments from block1 with the addition of new material.

The fifth block is the climax of the work, and combines new material with elements of

the four previous blocks. Unlike the other blocks, which have been unified by at least one

consistent ostinato, block 5 is characterized by its lack of a unifying element. Instead, various

ostinatos and melodic fragments interrupt and overlap with each other. This section seems even

more improvisatory and chaotic than the rest of the piece. Melodic ideas are introduced,

interspliced, and switched amongst in a manner that heightens the musical excitement.

Orchestrating the Étude pour pianola

Left alone until 1928, we are left wondering why Stravinsky decided to orchestrate the

Étude pour pianola, and its use as the fourth movement of his Orchestral Études, then entitled

“Madrid.” There are several possible explanations, although we will probably never know for

sure what Stravinsky's reasoning was. Time and time again we have seen Stravinsky reuse

Kermit-Canfield 15

material, and it seems he never threw anything away. For example, when Anthony and

Cleopatra (1917) fell through, he recycled and reworked the material, using it for Histoire du

soldat (1918).35 Furthermore, Stravinsky reused or repeated material from previous

compositions, such as his use of motives from Rite of Spring (1913) and Firebird (1910) in later

compositions, and in an extreme example, works by Pergolesi, Gallo, and others are very clearly

used as source material for Pulcinella.36

In addition to reusing material from composition to composition, Stravinsky often

released multiple versions of the same work. A good example is Symphony of Wind Instruments,

for which Stravinsky released two versions, the first in 1920, the second in 1947. Pianola

transcriptions of his entire catalogue should also be included in this list. Stravinsky was

frequently in need of money, and publishing or having multiple versions of pieces performed

contributed to his income. A dedication of a work, such as Piano Rag Music (1919) to Arthur

Rubenstein, or an orchestration or piano reduction of an earlier work could yield quick cash.

The first three Orchestral études are orchestrations of the Three pieces for string quartet

(1914). It seems rather peculiar that the Étude would be combined with these works. Perhaps

Stravinsky's publisher requested that he include a fourth movement in order to publish the

Orchestral études. In 1927, Stravinsky reinherited the copyright for the Étude pour pianola from

the Aeolian Company. Stravinsky could have used the Étude as part of the Orchestral études as

35 Maureen Carr, ed., Stravinsky’s Histoire Du Soldat: A Facsimile of the Sketches (New

York: A-R Editions, 2005), 11. 36 While Stravinsky did not write the music of the sources, I include it as an example of

Stravinsky's tendency to reuse previously written musical material. In the same manner, Stravinsky quotes Mussorgsky, Russian folk songs, and rag music in other works—albeit in a much smaller quantity.

Kermit-Canfield 16

a way to publish the Étude pour pianola, as it was never released in a form other than piano roll

at this point.

A final consideration is that Stravinsky may have originally written the Étude pour

pianola to include other instruments. In Stravinsky's sketches for the Étude, now housed at the

Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel, Switzerland, Stravinsky has indicated some material to be played

by instruments other than pianola. While these notations may have been added at a later point in

time, the instruments indicated in the sketches usually do not match the instruments used in the

1928 orchestrated edition (see Table 2). A prime example of Stravinsky’s tendency to change

instrumentation comes from Symphonies of Wind Instruments. In his article, Walsh writes ”he

could change his mind so often about basic details, and be so frequently indecisive and fallible

over material...”37 While in this instance Walsh is discussing Symphonies of Wind Instruments

and not the Étude pour pianola, I find it extremely likely that Stravinsky would have had the

same artistic problem deciding his instrumentation. It is probable that Stravinsky changed his

mind about instrumentation of the Étude in a similar manner. If Stravinsky had originally

planned on writing for pianola and other instruments, it makes sense that he returned to the piece

at a latter time to finish what he started.

Adapting the Étude for orchestra

Some aspects of Stravinsky’s orchestration are very standard and not surprising. For

example, consider the first five bars. Stravinsky has assigned his instrumentation according to

register. The piccolo, flutes and first violins cover the top voices, the oboes, clarinets, and

37 Stephen Walsh, “Stravinsky’s Symphonies: Accident or Design?,” in Analytical

Strategies and Music Interpretation: Essays on Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Music (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 49.

Kermit-Canfield 17

Table 2: Selected instrumentation differences between Stravinsky’s sketches for Étude pour pianola and the published Boosey and Hawkes score for “Madrid” from the Orchestral etudes.

second violins play the middle register voices, and the violas, cellos, and trombones provide the

bass support. This is a typical orchestral texture where the timbre of strings and woodwinds are

combined in the upper voices and brass and low strings act together in the lower voices. While

the combined timbre of strings and woodwinds is harmonically rich, it is not suited for consistent

use through the entire piece as it would get boring rather quickly. For this reason, Stravinsky

varies the instrumentation, which also highlight his use of block form.

Kermit-Canfield 18

In Block 3, which occurs the first time two measure before rehearsal 2 (R2) of “Madrid,”

the bass ostinato is written for timpani, cello, and bass, the two midrange ostinatos occurs in the

clarinet parts, and the melody is scored for flute and oboe.38 Block four, which begins two

measures before R5 starts with ostinatos in the string and piano parts with the melody presented

in the first violin part. This timbre change—from woodwinds to strings—occurs at the same

time as the shift from one block to the next. The complexity of block four’s construction is

aurally clarified by the instrumentation throughout, as the fragments and ostinatos enjoy their

own sound colors.

Stravinsky made some minor changes in his orchestration, such as adding accents and

other articulation (e.g., accents in the first several measures). In one instance (mm. 54), he splits

six eighth note E-flats into twelve sixteenth notes with different articulations and registers (see

Example 3). This change adds a complexity to the sound, and one that was probably not scored

for pianola as it would not be as audible.

…

As we have seen, Stravinsky was drawn to the reproducing piano because of the

possibility to remove the performer’s musical interpretation and ability to accurately produce

38 The study score for the Étude contains measure numbers but no rehearsal numbers, and

the orchestral score has the exact opposite. Going from the pianola edition to orchestral score, Stravinsky rewrote some of the time signatures. In this regard it is challenging to refer to measure numbers in the orchestral score, as they do not correspond to measure numbers in the study score. It is equally challenging to provide rehearsal numbers in the study score, as they are not printed in the music.

A good example occurs at measure 62 of the study score, and one measure before R11 in the orchestral edition. In the study score, the eighth notes after the scale are in a single 2/4 measure, the triplet turn is in a single 3/8 measure, and beginning of block five starts out 5/8, 3/8, 6/8. In the orchestral edition, the eighth notes are combined with the triplet turn in a 3/4 bar. Block five begins at R11 with a 9/8 measure before meeting the study score in 6/8. This is a logical change as the phrasing of the cadence really occurs in 3/4 and is more clear for live musicians.

Kermit-Canfield 19

Example 3: Measure 54 of Etude pour pianola as written in the study score and as played by the first violin in “Madrid.”

rhythms and chords impossible for a human performer to play. He also wrote for the instrument

for financial reasons. Robert Craft points out that Stravinsky’s contract with Pleyel was

probably worth between $2,000 and $4,000 annually in a time period where the average worker’s

income would have been closer to $600.39 Unfortunately, the pianola was musically too limited

as an instrument, and soon after receiving Ansermet’s letter in June 1919 Stravinsky ceased

writing for the pianola

Today, the player piano concept still exists in several forms. In the most traditional

sense, instruments such as Yamaha’s Disklavier and Bösendorfer’s CEUS have replaced

traditional roll-operated player pianos with their modern day equivalent. These pianos operate

through MIDI interfaces, and store their music on CDs, 3.5 inch Floppy Disks, or flash

memory.40 In addition to having improved features, such as the ability to record and play back

music instantly and store many more scores (without the hassle of loading and rewinding rolls)

than a traditional player piano, modern player pianos sound better and perform more fluently

39 Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Conversations with Igor Stravinsky (Garden City,

NY: Doubleday and Company, 1959), 164. 40 MIDI stands for “Musical Instrument Digital Interface,” and is a digital protocol for

digital instruments and computers to communicate and send instructions to each other. For more information on MIDI, see “General MIDI Specifications,” MIDI Manufacturers Association, http://www.midi.org/techspecs/gm.php.

Kermit-Canfield 20

Figure 2: First 10 measure of Etude pour pianola viewed in the piano roll editor of Cubase. Just like a pianola’s piano roll, the position and length of the black bars represent pitch and rhythm. The skinny vertical bars at the bottom of the window represent dynamics and articulations.

than roll-operated instruments.41 Modern music software has also adopted the term “piano roll”

to refer to MIDI editors that appear in programs such as Apple’s Logic and Steinberg’s Cubase

(see Figure 2). These editors are not only visually attractive, but informative, easy to use, and

able hold much information about each note (e.g., pitch, dynamic level, articulation, instrument

etc.) allowing a composer much flexibility in the compositional process.

What would Stravinsky’s reaction have been to MIDI powered player pianos and

software editors? I believe his opinions would be mixed—both in adoration of the power of

computer processing and fervently against computer aided composition. We have seen that

Stravinsky always wanted to be on the cusp of technology, from his initial adoption of the

41 Naturally, modern player pianos are rare to find and just as challenging to repair as

older instruments.

Kermit-Canfield 21

pianola to his early use of recording technologies. Stravinsky turned to mechanical instruments

and recording his music as a means to remove variability from performances of his work.

Unfortunately for Stravinsky, these early technologies were not particularly good. Modern

computers would have given Stravinsky the absolute control he wanted and the ability to produce

precisely the sounds he wanted without the inconsistency of live performers.

While Stravinsky was critical of early music technology (music concrete and

elektronische musik), he hinted that it was still early in its development:

I would still repeat the criticisms I made of it [electronic music] two years ago—namely, I do not see why a medium so rich in sound possibilities should sound so poor…At the same time the newer electronic music has more direction…the whole electronic music experiment set up to the present can only be regarded as a pre-natal stage in its development.42

He continues by mentioning how he thinks electronic music is suited for use in the theatre.

Although Stravinsky’s compositional output includes so many ballets, he never followed this

idea through. I believe it is because Stravinsky was strongly independent and using computer aid

in his compositional process would have been akin to admitting his own compositional failure.

While Stravinsky only wrote a single piece for the pianola, the Étude pour pianola is

brilliantly constructed and is a pivotal composition both for its predictive and backward looking

elements. Stravinsky’s relationship with the instrument lasted over fifteen years, and his income

from the Pleyel company made it possible for him to support his family and compose other

pieces. Always at the cusp of technology, Stravinsky adopted the pianola as a way to achieve

perfect performances of his work and later abandoned it when it proved to be less successful than

he had hoped in favor of the phonograph.

42 Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Stravinsky in Conversation with Robert Craft (New

York: Penguin, 1962), 228–230.

Kermit-Canfield 22

References

Carr, Maureen. After the Rite: Stravinsky’s Path to Neoclassicism from 1914 to 1925. Oxford University Press.

Carr, Maureen, ed. Stravinsky’s Histoire Du Soldat: A Facsimile of the Sketches. New York: A-R

Editions, 2005. Colles, et al., H.C. “Evans, Edwin.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online.

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/09101. Cross, Jonathan. The Stravinsky Legacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press, 1998. Crutchfield, Will. “Interpretations of Stravinsky Pianola Rolls.” New York Times. New York,

May 29, 1988. Evans, Edwin. “Pianola Music.” Musical Times 62, no. 945 (November 2921): 761–764. “General MIDI Specifications.” MIDI Manufacturers Association. http://www.midi.org

/techspecs/gm.php. “History of the Pianola: An Overview.” The Pianola Institute. http://www.pianola.org/history

/history.cfm. Holland, Frank. “Pianola.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online (March 8, 2012). Lawson, Rex. “Etude Pour Pianola by Igor Stravinsky.” Pianola Journal 5 (1993): 4–22. ———. “Igor Stravinsky and the Pianola.” Rex Lawson - Concert Pianolist.

http://www.rexlawson.com/index.html?contents.html&0. ———. “Stravinsky and the Pianola (Part 2).” Pianola Journal 2 (1989): 2–16. ———. Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring and Petrushka. New York: Nimbus, 1991. ———. “What Is a Concert Pianolist?” Rex Lawson - Concert Pianolist. http://www.rexlawson.

com/index.html?contents.html&0. McFarland, Mark. “Stravinsky and the Pianola: A Relationship Reconsidered.” Revue De

Musicologie 97, no. 1 (2011): 84–109. Ord-Hume, Arthur. “Player Piano.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online (2007). Reynolds, Reginald. “A Note on the Technique of Recording.” Pianola Journal 7 (1994): 36–38.

Kermit-Canfield 23

Simeone, Nigel. “Review: Stravinsky Les Noces (arr. Pianola by Stravinsky and Larmanjat) and Other Music for Pianola, by Rex Lawson (Pianola), Aeolus 101.” Pianola Journal 12 (1999): 53–54.

Stravinsky, Igor. An Autobiography. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1936. Stravinsky, Igor, and Robert Craft. Conversations with Igor Stravinsky. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday and Company, 1959. ———. Stravinsky in Conversation with Robert Craft. New York: Penguin, 1962. Stravinsky, Igor. Quatre Etudes Pour Orchestre. New York: Boosey and Hawkes, 1952. “The Reproducing Piano: An Overview.” The Pianola Institute. http://www.pianola.org

/reproducing/reproducing.cfm. Toch, Ernst. “On Writing for the Mechanical Piano.” Pianola Journal 1 (1987): 36–40. Van den Toorn, Pieter. The Music of Igor Stravinsky. New York: Yale University Press, 1983. Walsh, Stephen. Stravinsky: A Creative Spring, Russia and France, 1882-1934. New York:

Knopf, 1999. ———. “Stravinsky’s Symphonies: Accident or Design?” In Analytical Strategies and Music

Interpretation: Essays on Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Music. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

———. The Music of Stravinsky. New York: Claredon Press, 1988.