the new york reception of pierrot lunaire

8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire

1/32

The New York Reception of "Pierrot lunaire": The 1923 Premiere and Its AftermathAuthor(s): David MetzerReviewed work(s):Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp. 669-699Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/742506 .

Accessed: 22/09/2012 04:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical

Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/742506?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/742506?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/32

The

New

York

eception

f

Pierrot

unaire:

he

1923

Premierend tsAftermath

David

Metzer

During

he

1920s,

New

York

City

witnessed

significant

ncrease

n

the

performance

f

modernist

usic.

One of the most ontroversial

works f

this

period

was Arnold

choenberg's

ierrot

unaire,

hich

received

ts

American

remiere

n

4

February

923.

According

o

the

critic awrence

Gilman,

he

performance

disrupted

amilies,

evered

life-longriendships,

ncited ritics o

unbrotherly

emarks

bout

one

another,

nd filledwhole

pages

n

the

Sunday

music

ections f

the

newspapers. 1

o critics

nd

concertgoers,

ierrot

pitomized

odem-

istcomposition,nd itthereforeerved s a lightningodfor he

growing

nd

vehement

ispute

urrounding

ew music.As a

receptor

in that

debate,

Pierrot as

galvanized y

a

variety

fmusical nd

social

currents.

his

study

f the

1923

and

1925 New

York

perfor-

mances

xamines

ot

only

how critical eactions o

the

work

xposed

contemporarynderstandings

f

music ut

also

how Pierrot

bsorbed

the

anxiety

ver

the

far-reaching

hanges nderway

n

American

society.

UnlikeEdgardVarase'sHyperprismndGeorgeAntheil's allet

mecanique,

wo

works hat lso scandalized ew York udiences ur-

ing

the

1920s,

Pierrot as

received umerous

ubsequent erformances

in the

city, ncluding

ne two

years

ftertsAmerican

remiere.

ur-

prisingly

or work hathas

achieved uch

vitality

n

twentieth-

century

usical

ife,

everal

spects

f t

have

been

neglected,

particularly

ts

reception istory.2

hereas he

reception

f

gor

Stravinsky's

he Rite

fSpring,

ne of the

few

modernist

ompositions

thatrivals ierrotncanoniccentralityndregular erformances,

has been

sketched,

hat f

Schoenberg's

elodramaas

barely

een

traced,

specially

he

response

o the work

n

the United

States.3

The

American eaction ffers

unique

case,

as

Pierrot,

n

landing

n for-

eign

oil,

dramatically

ntered

musical

world

haken

y

the sudden

669


3/32

670

TheMusical

uarterly

increase

n the

performance

fnew

music. he

regular

resentations

of heworkrovideherare pportunityo track hereceptionf n

important

arly

modernist

omposition

ot

nly

n

theunstable usi-

cal world

f1920sNewYork ut lso

through

he

rapidlyhanging

musicalnvironmentf he ast even ecades. chart f hat

mean-

dering ath

hows oth he

riginal

xplosive

ffects

roduced

y

Pierrotndthevariousndoften

ontradictory

eanings

hatwork

has

accruedince tsNewYork

remiere.

New

York udiences

irstncounteredierrot

n

theAmerican

presseviewsf he1912Berlinremiere,hich isseminatedhe

revolutionary

eputation

hat

he

work ad

gained

n

Europe.4 ames

Huneker'seviewntroduced

any

ewYorkerso the

omposition

and

ignificantly

nfluenced

he

ubsequent

iscussionsf

Schoenberg

in

American

usical

ritings.5

e

expressed

ismay

ver he om-

poser's

eparture

romonal

onventions,

abeling

is

music lexicon

of

narchy.

lthough

onfounded

y

he

conoclasmf

he

work,

Huneker

raised

choenberg's

bility

o

express

diversity

fmoods

and

tmospheres:

What

ind fmusics

this,

ithout

elody,

n

he

rdinary

ense;

without

hemes,

et very

cornof a

phrase ontrapuntally

eveloped

by

an

adept,

without

harmony

hatdoes not

smite he

ears, acerate,

figuratively

peaking,

he

ardrums;

eys

orcednto ateful

arriage

that re

miles

sunder,

r

else too

closely

elated or ural

matrimony;

no

form,

hat

s

in

the scholastic ormal

ense,

nd

rhythms

hat re so

persistently

aried s to become

monotonous-what

indof music s

this

repeat

hat an

paint

crystaligh,

he blackness f

prehistoric

night, heabyss f a morbidoul,theman nthemoon, he faint weet

odors f

an

impossible

airyland,

nd the strut

f the

dandy

rom er-

gamo?

heresnomelodic

rharmonic

ine,

nly

seriesf

oints,

dots,

dashes,

r

phrases

hat ob

and

scream,

espair,

xplode,

xalt,

blaspheme.

Despite

uch

raise

f

Schoenberg's

ividmood

ainting,

u-

neker's

oncluding

ssessment

f

Pierrot

as

negative.

e

closed

is

review

ydoubting

is

bility

o

appreciate

hework:

If

uch

music

makings to becomecceptedhen long or eath heReleaser.

More

hocking

tillwould

e the

uspicion

hat

n time

might

e

persuaded

o

ike his

music,

o

embrace

t,

fter

bhorring

t. While

death

did,

in

fact,

release Huneker

before he

New York

performance,

his discussions f

Schoenberg's

music after he

1913 reviewof

Pierrot

show an

increased

appreciation,

lthough

of earlier

and,

by

that

time,

less iconoclastic

works.

Exposure

to such

compositions

s

the First nd


4/32

NewYork

eceptionf

Pierrotunaire

671

Second

tring

uartets,

erklarte

acht,

ndGurrelieder

onvinced

him fthe omposer'significances a reactiongainstormalnd

romantic

eauty.

e even

predicted

hat

choenberg,

ike

trauss

and

Debussy,

ould oonbecome

conventional. 6

Huneker'seviewndother ccountsf

Europeanerformances

of

Schoenberg's

usic

ropagated

he

omposer'seputation

s

a

radical

venbefore is

compositions

ere nown

n

the

ity.

or

instance,

1913Current

pinion

rticle

abeled

im

the irstuturist

in music. 7 he

nitial

erformances

f

Schoenberg's

orks

n

the

ity

confirmed

his

iew,

s criticsften

ecried

is

ttacks

n

established

musical

ractices.

ewYork

oncertgoers'

irstirect

xperience

ith

the

omposer's

usic

as

performance

f

three

arly ongs y

he

Americanaritone

einaldWerrenrathn 23

October 913

op.

1,

no.

1,

and

op.

3,

nos.

1

and

3).

During

he

ubsequent

wo

years,

series f ocal

premieres-the

irst

tring

uartet,

erklarte

acht,

he

First

hamber

ymphony,

elleas nd

Melisande,

hree

iano

ieces

(op.

11),

andSixLittle

iano ieces

op.

19)-scandalized

udiences

andfueled

he

ncipient

ebate

vermodernist

tyles.

ThefollowingewYork remiereftheFiveOrchestralieces,

op.

16,

cemented

choenberg's

eputation.

he

work,

erformed

y

Leopold

tokowskindthe

Philadelphia

rchestrat

Carnegie

all

on

29

November

921,

rovoked

critical

esponse

hat

ot

only

anticipated

ut lmost

ivaledhe

utrage

ver ierrot.

he

conserva-

tive ritic

enry

rehbiel as o

stunnedhat

e

resortedo

quoting

theBible

n

hisdefense

gainst

he

omposition.8

he

equally

eac-

tionary

ichard ldrich

laimed hat

hework

ouldnot

be

regarded

as musicndthat tprovedo be more ereticalhan hemusicf

other

ontemporary

omposers:

But

here ere

oubtless

ew,

f

ny,

n

ast

night's

udienceo

whom

the

pieces

bore

ny

relation o music

t all.

. .

there

s

not

the

slight-

estreason o

believe hat

the

nstruments']

queaks, roans,

nd

ater-

wauling

epresent

n

ny

way

he

musicaldioms

f

oday

r

omorrow

or

any

other uture

ime.Hard

words

ave been

said about

the most

recent

utput

f

Messrs.

asella,

Stravinsky,

rokofieff

nd

others f

the same

kind;but most f what heyhavedone is innocent,ucid, nd

reasonable

ompared

o

Sch6nberg's

chievements.

ossibly

ome ort

of

apology

s due to them.9

NewYork

oncertgoers

aited leven

years

fter he

Berlin

re-

miere

or he first

merican

erformance

f

Pierrot,

delay

aused

partly y

the war nd

the

resultant

ublic

ntipathy

oward

erman

music.1'0

nother

mpediment

as the

difficulty

n

finding

ommitted


5/32

672

The

Musical

uarterly

musicians.he

nternational

omposers'

uild

ICG),

established

y

Varese ndCarlos alzedon1921, cceptedhe hallengefperform-

ing

he

omplex

ork.11

ouis

Gruenberg,

guild

member

ho

had

attendedoth ehearsalsnd

oncertsfPierroted

by choenberg

n

Berlin,

as electeds the

onductor,

long

with

he

oprano

reta

Torpadie

s

the

eciter,

third

hoice

fter va Gauthier

ndMimine

Salzedo addeclined.

Varesewrote o

Schoenberg,nforming

im

f he

oncertnd

asking

im

o

oin

the

guild.

n

hiscurt

esponse,

choenbergues-

tioned hegroup'sbilityoperformheworkndturnedown he

invitation.

2

The

composer's

esentmentas

argely

ueled

y

he

guild's isruption

fhis

plans

o

present

oth

ierrot

ndGurrelieder

during

1923Americanour.He

asked NewYork

eporter

o

warn

audiences ot o

regard

he

performance

s

definitive,

ince

a

stranger

ould

not

xpress

is rtistic

deas.13

he

guild

managed

o

secure

ermission

o

program

he

omposition

nly

rom

he

publisher

and

not

from

choenberg.

4

Despite

choenberg's

bjections,

he

CG

continued

o

prepare

thework. laireReis, he ndefatigablehairpersonf heguild's

executive

ommittee,

versawhe

rrangements

nd

publicity

or he

concert.

n

an efforto nform

oncertgoers,

he

group

eleased

press

statementhat iscussed

choenberg's

areernd

billed

ierrots his

most

ignificant

chievement.15

he

CG

also cheduled lecture

on

Pierrot

y

Carl

Engel,

guild

memberndhead f hemusic ivi-

sion

t

the

Library

f

Congress

7

January

923).

Admitting

hat he

work as

difficulto

grasp,

e nonethelessold he udiencehat t

was heirduty o findthe ightarswithwhicho isteno t. 16

The

musicians,owever,

ere

truggling

o

find

he

rightechnique

withwhich o

play

ierrotnd nsistedn more

ime

o

prepare,

which

orced

eis

o

postpone

he

oncert,

riginally

cheduledor 1

January,

ntil

woweeks

ater.

Gruenberg's

emandsor dditional

rehearsals

gain

hreatenedo

postpone

he

premiere,

utReis on-

vinced

im

o

agree

o

the

newly

cheduled

ate.17

The

guild refaced

he

premiere

ith

n

open

fternoon

rehearsaln

the

day

fthe

performance.

hat

vening'srogram

t

theKlawTheatrelsocontainedorksyCharles oechlinSonata

for wo

Flutes),

rik

atie

Sports

t

divertissements)

nd

DariusMil-

haud

excerpts

romaudadeso

Brasil).

hanks

argely

o Reis's

efforts,

he

concert

was

sold

out, and,

according

o

her,

bout wo

hundred

eople

were urned

way

t thedoor.

8

The success f the

event

helpedbring

he

strugglingroup's

ndeavors o the attention f

the

public

nd

critics.


6/32

New

York

eceptionf

Pierrotunaire

673

The work

met dividedritical

eception,

argely

plitting

reviewerslong enerationalines.19hestrongestttackgainstier-

rot

wasunleashed

y

he Old Guard

ritics,

venerated

uartet

including

illiam

.

Henderson,

ichard

ldrich,

enry

.

Finck,

and

Henry

.

Krehbiel.

ctive s far ack s the ast ecades f he

nineteenth

entury,

heir

pproaches

nd tandardsere nfluenced

y

the esthetics

f

German omanticism

nd,

for hemost

art, roved

inflexible

n

comprehending

ew rends.20

ldrich,

ink,

ndKreh-

biel,

he

nly

membersf

heOld

Guard

o

review

he

premiere,

focused

heir riticismn

Schoenberg'sisregard

or he stablished

traditionsf

past

music,

mentioning

he

trong

issonances,

heuseof

Sprechstimme,

nd

perceived

ack

f

ontrapuntal

nity

etweenhe

instrumental

arts.

hismusic o affrontedinck hat e left

fterhe

firsteven

ongs

nd

referred

o

Pierrot

nd

the

ther

rogrammed

works

s

dreary

usicalomfooleries. 21

In

contrast

o Fink's

evulsion,

everal

ounger

ritics,

ncluding

Paul

Rosenfeld,

itts

andborn,

ndKatherine

paeth,

raised

he

work,

lbeit o different

egrees.

osenfeldndthe

unsigned

ritic or

the unfoundchoenberg'susicintense nd sensuous, espec-

tively.

paeth

laimed hat

ierrot

as

musics an

interesting

dea ;

however,

hedislikedhemelodic

riting

nd

heard

he nteraction

between

he

reciternd

the

ccompaniment

s

producing

a rather

irritating

ffect.

lthough

enerally

omplimentary

f he

work,

Sandborn

as

onfounded

y

hemusical

anguage,tating

hat e

would

equire

dditional

earings

n

order o

form

definite

pinion.

Nevertheless,

e

concludedhat

he

premiere

epresented

a

painstak-

ingperformancefone of hemostypicalnd ignificantomposi-

tions

f

one of hemost

mportantiving

omposers.

In

contrast

o the

ritical

esponse,

udience eactions

difficult

to assess.

eviews

f he

performance

escribe diverse

udience

consisting

f

urious

oncertgoers,

the

younger

nd

youngestenera-

tions fthe ocalmusical

ntelligentsia,

nd the

ristocratsf

music. 22lso

present

ere he

distinguished

usicians

ho re

striving

o

bring

n themillenniumn

which

acophony

hall

eign,

a

vanguardncluding

ilhaud, tokowski,

lfredo

asella,

Georges

Enesco,ndWillemMengelberg.n a derisivessaynspiredy he

concert,

rehbielescribedhe

various

esponses

f

oncertgoers.

Although

is

negative

iewof the work

learly

rejudiced

is

report,

he offeredhe most xtended ccount f

audience eaction:

I saw

perhaps

score f

persons

who

werebrave

nough

o leave

the

room t the first

pportunity

hich

presented

tself hen

hey

oulddo


7/32

674

TheMusical

uarterly

so

without

eing

ude nd more han nother corewho had the hardi-

hood to smile arcasticallyramusedly henever heperformance

struck hem s

absurd,

nd

yet

at t

out

to the bitter nd. But

no one

indulged

n

catcalls,

r even hisses.That was an

example

f the

good

manners hat

habitually

ule n American oncert-rooms.

I also saw and heard

hundred r more

ersons

tand

up

and

applaud

he

performance

efore

utting

n their

wraps

nd

coats.

scanned heir aces

o see whether r not

they

weremusicians r mem-

bers

f he lass obefound

n

oncert-roomshere

ood,

ound usic

dissociated

romad nd actitious

lap-trap

sheard.

y

earch

as n

vain-musiciansulledmy leeve nd itheroked r wore-generally

the ormer.

Krehbiel,

1

Feb.

923)

Whereas

many oncertgoers

ay

avebeen

dismayed,

hework

proved

o be a

popular

uccess. o recount

riefly

celebratedvent

in American

usical

istory,

his

riumph

onvincedome

uild

mem-

bers,

ncluding

eis,

o offer second

erformance

f he

piece.

That

desire,

owever,

ontradicted

bylaw

n

the

rganization's

harter,

drawn

p

by

Varese,

which tated hat he

CG

only

ffered

irst

er-

formancesnddidnotrepeat orks. heargumenthat nsued ver

this

olicy

ventually

ed

to

a schism. rustrated

y

Varese'sutocratic

leadership,

eis nd everal ther

memberseceded ndformed

heir

own

music

ociety,

he

League

f

Composers.23

n

22

February

925,

the

new

group

ealized

ts ntentions

yfeaturing

ierrot

n

a concert

at the

Times

quare

heatre ith oward arlow

s the onductor

and

Torpadie

gain

s thereciter.

he

program

ypified

he

eague's

ambitiousness

nd,

n

additiono

Pierrot,

ncludedazare

aminsky's

one-actperaGagliardaf MerrylaguendGruenberg'sheDaniel

Jazz.

he concert

as

success,

nd

s the ritic

scar

Thompson

noted,

All the

high

riests

fmusical

modernity

owdomiciled

n

New

York

were elebrantst

Sunday ight's

eremonialt

Times

Square

heatre,

ither

s

composers,nterpreters,

r avid

isteners.

One

of he

high riests

as

George

ershwin.

This

performance

lso

tirredritical

ebate,

lthough

he

dis-

pute

was

not s

heated s

that

rovoked

y

he arlieroncert.

he

controversy

urrounding

oth

erformances

nterwoventricate

trands

ofmusicalnd ocial iews. n one evel, eactionsothepiece

exposed

he

general

usical

xpectations

f

he

period,

hat

s,

the

perceptions

f

music ormulated

rom

onventions

nd isteners'

ast

experiences.24

n

attacking

r

praising

Pierrot,

ritics

relied on con-

temporary

deals of

the nature

and role of

music,

and

throughout

heir

reviews hese

ideals

were educed.

In

particular,

he

work,

as wouldbe

expected,

challenged

traditional

iews

of

tonality

nd

genre;

however,


8/32

New

York

eceptionf

Pierrot

unaire

675

it

also

touched

pon

oth

onceptions

egarding

he imitsf

xpres-

sion ndthe xpectationhatmusic ebeautifulndmoral.

The

response

o

Pierrot

as

lso

haped

y

arger

ultural

res-

sures.

s the

historiananiel

ingal

as

described,

he

arly

ecades

of

the wentieth

entury

n theUnited tateswere

period

f

ultural

instability

reated

y

he hiftromhe

waning

ictoriano the

nascent

modernist

ulture.25

ingal's

iew

f

modernisms a cultural

phenomenon,

ne

permeating

ll

areas fAmerican

ife,

eparts

rom

the

raditional

iew

f he

movements

an

autonomous

esthetic

development.

n

this

econceptualization,

e

has

drawn

pon

he

workfPeter

ay,

who

regards

odernism

implicitly,

n hisdiscus-

sions,

ts

European

anifestations)

s a distinctistorical

ulture,

ike

the

Enlightenment

nd.Victorianism.

ccording

o

Gay,

modernism

was

a

pervasive

ultural

evolution,

second enaissance hat

transformed

ulture

n

all itsbranches. 26

To

map

horoughly

culturalhifthe

magnitude

f hat

described

y

ingal

nd

Gay

s

beyond

he

reach f

this

ssay,

hich

can

provide

nly

hemost

eneral

utline.

uch

sketchhould

egin

with henotion fAmericanictorianism,phrasehatmay trike

some eaderss

an

oxymoron;

owever,

s

discussed

n

American

studies,

ictorianismuled n both ides

fthe

Atlantic,

rising

n

theUnited tates

argely

s a resultfAmerica'sultural

ependency

on

Britain.27

he Victorianutlook asbased

n

the

perceived

er-

tainty

fmoral nd

piritual

ruths. s

Walter

.

Houghton

rote,

Politics,

orals,

istory,

conomics,

rt,

ducation-allwere

ov-

erned,

t was

hought,

y

universalaws

r

principles

rue or ll times

andplaces. 28 moral ichotomyetweenhe human ndthe

animal

lso

haped

ictorianeliefs. he former

mbracedhose

elements

hat

istinguished

an rom

east,

uch s

religion,

duca-

tion,

ndthe

rts,

while

he atterontainedorces

hat hreatened

propriety,

otablyexuality.

ictorians

troveo

shield hemselves

from

estructivebestial orcesnd

ttempted

o cultivate

world

f

innocencend

perfection.

he Victorianocial

iew ontained

ther

dichotomies-for

xample,

he

distinctionetween

uperior

nd nfe-

rior lasses s well s between hite

ndnonwhiteaces.

Modernismhallengedictorianismotwith uniformultural

stance ut

with

vast nd

often

ontradictoryrray

f

beliefs,

er-

spectives,

nd aesthetics. s

Singal

points

ut,

one of the

dominant

impulses

f the culturewasto assault he

Victorian

onception

f

inviolable ruths.

n

lieu of such

tenets,

modernismccepted

moral

uncertainty

nd

irrationality

nd

openly

xamined ll

aspects

f

human

behavior,

ncluding

he sexual.Partof this

xploration

as


9/32

676

TheMusical

uarterly

the

fascinationith

sychic

omplexity

nd

rrationality

hat

ueled

manyf he esthetic ovementsf heperiods well sthe xpand-

ing

ield

f

psychoanalysis.

oreover,

ingal

iscussesow

modernism

integrated

he

various

ocial

ivisions

pheld

y

Victorianism,

articu-

larly

hose

overning

he

reas

f

lass, ace,

nd

gender.

In

his

tudy

f

arly-twentieth-century

merican

ulture,

tanley

Coben lso

focusesn

the

dissolutionf

he

Victorian

ustification

f

hierarchiesn

those

reas.

Without

mploying

he

ultural

ubricf

modernism,

oben

views

hat

isintegration

s

a

part

f

sweeping

rebelliongainst

ictorianism. 29

his

revolt,ccordingohim,wasled

by

growing

ntelligentsia,

actionsfwhich

hallenged

he imits

of

knowledge

ndtruth

rescribedy

Victorian

ulture.n

addition,

the

hierarchies

amed bove

were

ssaultedot

nly

y

hose

ntellec-

tuals ut

lso

by

various

olitical

nd ocial

orces,

ncluding

he

activities

f eftist

olitical

nd

abor

roups

nd uch

opulation

hifts

as the

migration

f

African

mericanso

northern

ities

ndthe

increased

resence

fwomenn

the

workplace.lthough

he ttack

launched

y

minority

roups

nd

ntellectuals

elped

obVictorianism

of tshegemony,hat ulture,s Cobenpointsut,hasprovedesil-

ient. or

nstance,

he

present-day

eligious

ight

as

renovatedic-

torian

onceptions

f

home,

amily,

nd

morality

n

ts

ampaign

or

traditional

amily

alues.

Other

estabilizing

orcesnd

developments

hat re ither

ver-

looked r

underemphasized

y

Coben

nd

Singal et

merit

entioning

include,

n

no

particular

rder,

rbanization,

ncreased

echanization,

scientific

hallenges

o

Victorian

erities,

nd

the

disillusionment

broughtbout yWorldWar . What lsodeserveso benotedsthat

modernismasnot

olely socially

dvancedmovement

ut on-

tained

eactionary

mpulses,

s is

evidento thosewho

have on-

fronted

he

litist,acist,

nd

misogynistic

iews hat

nderscoreuch

modernist

rt.

Moreover,

odernismadan

ambivalent

elationship

with

heforcesf

technology

ith

whicht

inked

tself

rwas

on-

nected

y

thers,

contradiction

vident

n

the

ontemporaneity

f

both

rtworks

rawingnergy

rom achines

ndurbanife

ndthose

celebratingprimitivism

ndthe

mysterious

otivesf he

ubcon-

scious.

These ensions

estify

ot o much

o the bundant

nconsisten-

cies

ofmodernism

ut o the

general

ultural

lux

f he

period,

s

conflictsccurred oth

between nd within

ictorianismnd

modernm-

ism.

t is

against

hisbroad

nd

chaotic

backdrop

f culturalonflict

that

Pierrot

merged. iewing

choenberg's

ork s more han

prod-

uct of radical

esthetic

orces,

ritics onnected

t,

most ften

ega-


10/32

NewYork

eceptionf

Pierrotunaire

677

tively,

ith

he xtensive

hanges

nderway

n American

ociety.

n

particular,heyssociatedhework ith declinenmorality,ental

illness,

he nfluential

heoriesf

Sigmund

reud,mechanization,

radical

olitical

movements,

nd,

hrough

hese

pecific

ssociations,

a

general

ultural

ecay.

Before

xamining

hereactiono

Pierrot,

t s

necessary

o sum-

marizehe

modernist

tyleslready

eard

n

NewYork.At the ime

ofthe1923

recital,

odern

usic as till

utting

nitial

nroadsnto

the

ity's

music orld.

he

composer

nd

pianist

eo

Omstein

made

thefirstignificantttempto ntroduceoncertgoerso new dioms.His 1915recitalsf modemndfuturistusic eaturedot

nly

is

own

hockingompositions

ut lso ocal

premieres

fworks

y

uch

European

odernists

s

Schoenberg,

criabin,

ndRavel.

Throughout

the

rest f he

1910s

nd

the

arly

920s,

rnstein

iligently

ro-

moted

ew

tyles.30

hree

ewly

ormed odemmusic ocieties-the

ICG,

Pro-Musica

New

York

hapter,

920-30),

nd

the

American

MusicGuild

1921-24)

intensified

rnstein's

fforts,

ncreasing

he

variety

fnewmusic eard

n

the

ity.

he most

requentlyerformed

modernistomposerseforehepremierefPierrotere choenberg,

Stravinsky,ebussy,

avel,

Bart6k,

nd

Omstein.

Despite

his

amiliarity

ithmodem

music,

most riticstill

rigidlypheld

he raditions

f

he

common-practice

ra s inviola-

ble. These onventionsssumed

herole f

valuative

tandards,nd,

guided y

hem,

eviewers

trongly

ttacked

choenberg's

hallenge

o

tradition.

s was o be

expected,

he

Old

Guard riticseiterated

their ensurehat uchmusic asvoid

f

proper

onal,melodic,

nd

formalractices.ldrich,orxample,tated:Of ny elationo

harmony, elody,

r

musical

xpression

s heretofore

nderstood,

theres

nothing.

ven he

younger

rankWarren

1923)

claimed

that he trick f

he

omposition

as

sawing

n

two

Mr.

Old

Tonality

ight

n

thefaces f he

udience. ritics'

ismay

ver

Schoenberg's

nnovative usical

anguage

ftenedthem o dismiss

thework s noise.Archie oatesheard

ierrot

s a

rendering

n

musical otationf he

ounds,

ay

f ce

n

a

thin

umbler,

nives

and

forks

n

a brass

ray,

agpipes,

rusty

ump

andle.

Those riticsreoccupiedith onventionere lsocompelled

to

assign

ierrot

o an established

enre.

he

general

usical

xpecta-

tions

provide

riteria

or

istenerso

place

a workwithin

specific

genre;

or

nstance,

elping

hem

udge

n instrumental

omposition

as a

sonata,

r a

symphony,

r

a

concerto.As

is

typical

f

many

mod-

ernist

works,

ierrot

ranscendedraditional

ategories.

he

unique

conception

f

the

work,

prechstimme

ith

tring,

ind,

nd

piano


11/32

678

TheMusical

uarterly

accompaniment,

onfusedewYork ritics

n

their ffortso

compre-

hendtsgenre. hey requentlyddressedhisssue,ndtheir iscus-

sions eveal

ow

hey

urned

gain

o

convention

n

confronting

Pierrot.

Some

ritics

autiously

cceptedchoenberg'sesignation

f

melodrama.

heir hief

bjection

as

o

theuseof

prechstimme.

his

technique,

owever,

asnot

ompletely

nfamiliar

o

NewYork

udi-

ences.

n

1910,

ngelbertumperdinck's

pera

Kinigskinder

eceived

itsworld

remiere

t the

Metropolitanpera.

n

that

work,

umper-

dinck,ike choenberg,ried o createnequilibriumetweenpeechand

ong

y pecifying

he

pproximateitch,

nflection,

ccentua-

tion,

nd

rhythm

fthe

reciting

art.

However,

hereas

umper-

dinck imed or aturalismnd

clarity,

choenberg

sed

prechstimme

to

convey

he

deliriumf

madness.31

he meritsf

Humperdinck's

technique

ere

ebated

y

heNew

York

ritics,

nd

many

f hem

later ited

Kdnigskinder

n

their eviews

f

Pierrot.rehbiel

entioned

the

pera

nd

past xamples

f

melodrama,

ven

going

s far ack s

the

monodists

f he

arly

eventeenth

entury,

uthe saw choen-

berg'sreatmentf heforms grotesquely,orridlyew. andborn

(1923)

cited

xamples

f he

genre

rom

idelio

ndStrauss'snoch

Arden

nd

claimed

hat

ierrotent

a

step

urther

y

using

Sprechstimme.

Several ritics

pproached

ierrots

a

song

ycle.

Vocalrecitals

filled

heNewYork

musical

alendar,

nd

concertgoers

ere amiliar

with he

German

ied

radition,

specially

he

ong ycles

fSchubert

andSchumann.

ierrothareseveralharacteristics

ith

uch

works,

particularlyheuseof voice nd ccompanimentexture,he elec-

tion f

group

f

poems

nited

y

heme rnarrative

tructure,

nd

the

ntegration

f

he ndividual

ieces

hrough

otivicrthematic

connections.32uch

general

onnections

ith he

ong yclemay

have ed

Ernest

ewman,

visiting

ritish

ritic

or

he

Evening

ost,

to view

ierrots a new

wisto an old

commonplace :

heLied.

n

fact,

e

regarded

he

oncluding

iece,

O

alter

uft,

s

nothing

but

platitudinous

erman ied

wrenchedlittle ut

of

hape.

Hendersonlso

claimed hat his

umberame lose o

resembling

a song fmarvelouseautyndeloquence ;owever,eaccused

Schoenberg

f

purposely

iverting

uch n outcome.

or

thers,

he

use of

Sprechstimme,

he

unique

nstrumental

ccompaniment,

ndthe

macabre hemes f

thetextdissociatedhe

composition

rom

he

Lied

tradition.he critic or

he

Sun,

for

nstance,

laimed hat

he

Sprechstimme

ade

t

impossible

oconsider he

work

s

a

collection

of

songs.


12/32

NewYork

eceptionf

Pierrotunaire

679

Besides

hallenging

raditional

enre

ndtonal

onceptions,

Pierrotrustratedhedominantxpectationhatmusicmust e beauti-

ful. his

ssumption

orms

key

omponent

f he ulturalutlook

that

George

antayana emorably

alled the

genteel

radition,

which,

ithin

he

ulturalcheme

mployed

ere,

an

be

seen s

a

cornerstonef

American

ictorianism.33

hile

voiding

concise

definitionf

he

phrase,

e described

split

n theAmerican ind

between

he

practical

ndthe ntellectualnd

rtistic.34

usic,

ike

the ther

rts,

was

eparated

rom

aily

ife nd

relegated

o an ideal-

istic ealm

n

which twas

regardedrimarily

s a manifestationf

beauty,

obility,

nd

morality

atherhan s an intrinsic

xpression

f

human

xperience.35

his

dichotomy

nfluencedothmusical

roduc-

tion

nd

consumption

s,

from

he

ymphony

allto the rade

eriod-

icals,

musicwas

promoted

s the ssence f

beauty.

he conductor

Walter amrosch

ermonizedn the arefied

eauty

f

music:

Music s an art

n

which

he

onception

f hebeautifuls

n

no sense

based

pon

he

physical

orld hich urrounds

s. ts

power

o evoke

an inner reamfbeautysgreaterndmoremmediatehan hat f

any

f

ts

isters,

nd

n

minds

nd

heartshat avebeen ducated

properly

o

ppreciate

ts

wonders,

usic ill

ive

appiness

eyond

he

possibilities

f

ny

ther

gency

or hat

urpose.36

On

the ther

and,

tude

magazine,

hich

lso

printed

amrosch's

remarks,

ffered

his rude ommercialnticement

n

an advertise-

ment lurb:

Every

iece

f

music

ou

uy

s an

unending

ell

pring

of

beauty

rom hich

ou

nd

your

riends

ay

rink ntil

our

ouls

havebeenrefreshed. 37

To

many

eviewers,

ierrot

logged

hat

spring

ndfailed

o

deliver

he

happiness

hat amrosch

romised.

his

ransgression

f

the

Victorian

enet fmusical

eauty

metwith

riticalensure.uc-

cinctlyxpressing

everal f

his

peers' bjections,

arren

1923)

reproached

he

work or

ivingnothing

f hat ense

f

beauty

e

look or

n

music.

ccording

o those

n

inewith

im,

hemusic

andthe hemesf

he ext

mphasized

gliness.

rehbiel

onsidered

Pierrot

n affronto the

principles

f

beauty

hat he

ages

have

provedo befundamental,ndheregardedhework ssymptomatic

of he rendthat

eauty

may

e

expressed

n

termsf

ugliness,

nd

that

ugliness

f

subject

s fit

bject

for

xpression

11

Feb.

1923).

Chiseling

way

t the

pedestal

f

civilization

pon

which

music

rested,

uch

views,

nhis

opinion,

marked return

o

savagery.

Apparently,

owever,

eauty

s in the ear

of the istener. he Sun

critic

1923),

for

nstance,

laimed hat everalmovements

n

Pierrot


13/32

680 TheMusical

uarterly

rose

to

the

beautiful.

n

general,hough,

upporters

f he

work

eschewedhe onventionalriterionfbeauty,ocusingheirraise

on other

lements,

otably

xpressiveness.

Much f he

debate

urrounding

hework

enteredn

the ssue

of

xpression.

uided

y

he

mphasis

n

beauty,

obility,

nd

moral-

ity

n

the

genteel

radition,

he

general

usical

xpectations

re-

scribedhat ertain

ubjects,ncluding

he

grotesqueries

n

Giraud's

poems,

ere nsuitableormusical

etting.

his

beliefed to accusa-

tions hat

choenberg

ad

transgressed

he

propriety

f

elf-expression

inregardoboth opic ndfervency.rehbiel,ornstance,argely

built

is

ttack n

the

work round

his

ssue.As

noted

bove,

e

decried

choenberg's

resentation

f

ugliness

n

Pierrot,

hich

incited

im

o ask

rhetorically,

Doesnot he

right

f

practitioner

in

art o

express

imself

epend

pon

what s

n

him

hat

s

worthy

f

expression?

11

Feb.

1923).

Krehbiel

ndtheMusical ourier

reviewer

1923)

chargedchoenberg

ith

eing

oo

ntense

n

captur-

ing

he

moods

f he ext. he

atter elieved

hat uch

high-pitched

expression

as

he

unfortunate

egacy

f

Wagner:

When

Wagner

rote

expressive

usic

in

mitation

f

frogs

nd

dragons,

or

nstance)

e

opened

he

door or

alentless,

onscienceless,

musicians

ike

choenberg,

ho

do

not

where

o draw he ine.

...

When

Wagner

acrificedbsolute usic

o

the

xpression

fdramatic

ideas

he

gave

he

mpetus

o such

s

Schoenberg,

ho

acrificell

music o the ame

od

f

xpressiveness.

Despite

he

narrowiews

oncerning

xpression

ustained

n

thegeneral usicalxpectations,anyeviewerserempressedy

Schoenberg's

ramatic

nd

pictorial

deptness,

ven hose

who

dis-

liked he

music. he

Eveningelegram

ritic

1923),

for

nstance,

admitted

hat

Schoenberg

as nventednewmeans

f

xpression

that

s

picturesque

nd

effective.

udged

s

music

t s

hideous. ut

the

poems

re

only

series

f

grotesques

ndthemusic ollowshe

line

f

hought

f

he

poet.

n

particular,

ome

ritics

egarded

he

Sprechstimme

s

dramatically

otent.

rving

Weil

consideredhe ech-

nique

s

part

f the nevitable

xpression,

he nevitable

usical

medium orGiraud's

oems.

orhis

part,

ngel,

nhis

guild-

sponsored

ecture,

efended

ierrot

argely

n the ines f

xpression:

What

may

eem rude nd

ugly

s

evidently

hemost

enuine,

he

most

itting,xpression

hat

Schdnberg

as found o

far orwhat

s in

his mind nd heart.

Moreover,

e

praised

the

dynamicntensity

f

Schoenberg's

usic nd claimed hat

twas

fraught

ith

meaning

and the sincere

esire o

convey

omething

eeply

elt. '3


14/32

NewYork

eceptionf

Pierrotunaire

681

Perhaps

he

most rdentdmirerf hework asRosenfeld.

That

he should ave

occupied

uch

singularosition

n

the

recep-tion fPierrots not

urprising;

osenfeld

igorously

hampioned

ot

only

ewmusic ut lsomodernist

tyles

n

the

ther

rts,

articu-

larly

ainting

nd iterature.39

oreover,

ar rom

eing

detached

admirer,

e

developed

n

imagistic,ragmented

rose

tyle,

fwhich

the

Pierrot

eviews

representative,

hat ccords ith he

riginality

and esthetic

pirit

f he

new

diomshat

e

supported.

Schoenberg's

ivid

etting

f a score f

orturedndbizarre

moods

specially

ntranced

osenfeld.e heard

within

his

music

smotheredesire reakingoose ndregardedhepainfulxpression

of

hat

esire s

representing

umanity's

nguished

ries

n

a

world

increasingly

ontrolled

y

machines.o

Rosenfeld,

he ntense

mo-

tionality

f hemusic

ainfullyxpressed

he

dehumanizing

ffectsf

the ncreased

echanization

n

contemporary

ociety.

ere,

he made

a

unique

xtramusical

ssociation,s,

withinhe

broader

eception

f

modern

usic,

ewworks ere

ften iewed s

symptomatic

f

rather

than reaction

gainst

mechanization.

apturing

he mbivalent

relationshipetween odernistrts nd modernizingechnological

developments,

osenfeldimself

ade heformer

onnection,

on-

tending

n

this

eview

ndelsewherehat hemusic

f

Stravinsky

captured

he

pulse

f

bothmachinesndurban

nvironments.40

or

their

art,

etractors

fmodernist

tyles

rew

pon

hese ame

ssocia-

tions o dismiss

uch

music s mechanistic

nd

cerebral.41

osenfeld,

though,

onsidered

ierrot

primal,hysical

ork,

alling

choen-

berg's

music

thehuman orso f

his]

ime. As he

described,

hat

body

writhednder he

weight

f

machines:

Schoenberg

s the man

without machine.

He is the

creature f a

time

of

dislocation. he

machinery

f

ifeno

longer

ooperates

ith

he

human oul. It moves o

a

rhythm

f ts

own;

and the

mechanical

things augh

down he

poor

human.

.

The

human orso f

this ime

is

in

the music f

Schoenberg.

e is

the

thing

without

rms,

without

legs,

ithout

rgans

f

ommunication,

ithout

phallus.

e sthe

helpless,

uivering

ulp;

lindly

tirring,

roping,

tretching.

n

lmost

immovable

eight

eemso ie

upon

is

oice.

ndwhent

peaks,

t

seems o tear tselfhroughhrouds;ocome outas agony, s hysteria

even.

In

addition to

conveying

tortured

hysicality,

osenfeld's

mag-

inative

interpretation

ocuses

on the

psychic,

tightening

he

linkages

made between

Pierrot

nd mental

illness,

an

association

evoked

by

both

the

extreme

nguish

he

depicts

and his

heated,

impressionistic


15/32

682 TheMusical

uarterly

prose tyle.

ierrot

eceived

ore

sychological

ttentionhan

ny

other ork erformednNewYork uringhe1920s. riticsften

described

t

n

termsf

derangement

nd

nsanity.

n

fact,

ome

reviewers

uestioned

utright

oth

choenberg's

ndGiraud's

anity.

Gilman

laimed

hat

he

omposer

sed he

macabrehemes

n

the

text s a

pretext

or he

release

f

various

sychoses

fhis

own,

nd

Weil

calledGiraud's

oetry

the

half-mad

roduct

f

sickly

rain.

The

Evening

ournal

eviewerontended

hat

ny

istener

ympathetic

to

the

work ould

ave o

be

mentally

nbalanced:

[T]he

mpression

thatPierrot]ade n this isteneras hat e was carcelyufficiently

deranged

o

penetrate

ore han tsmore

uperficial

ysteries.

na

1921 rticle

n

Schoenberg's

usic,

rank

attersonidnot

focus

n

the

anity

f

pecific

ndividualsut atherhe ntire

world.

ierrot,

along

with ther f he

omposer's

orksnd

modernistrts

n

gen-

eral,

ed

him

o

pose

ome nanswerable

uestions:

Is

the

world

going

mad?Has ournormalmental

evelopment

eased,

nd rewe

destinedo become universef diots nd

mbeciles,

eurotics,

nd

hysterics? 42

While resent-dayriticsolongerismisschoenberg,iraud,

or

theworld

s

insane,

he

onnectionetween ierrotndmental

instability

as

become

commonplace

n

current

nderstandings

f

the

work,

s it s situated

n

turn-of-the

entury

ienna,

ome

f

Freud nd

Expressionist

rtists.he association

ith

reud

ppears

n

an indirect

orm

n

the1920s

New

York

eception.

he

evocation

f

Freud

n

these eviewseveals

he

widespreadurrency

hat is deas

had chieved

n

NewYork

uring

he

1920s.43

his

nfluence

argely

dates ack oFreud's 909 ripo theUnited tates, uringhich e

lectured

t Clark

University.

fterhat

isit,

is deas

uickly

ene-

trated merican

ociety,waying

ot

only

hemedical

ommunity

ut

also ntellectual

ircles

nd

popular

ulture.

he

Greenwich

illage

radicals,

group

f

ntellectuals,rtists,

nd

political

evolutionaries

loosely

anded

ogetheruring

he

years

efore orldWar

,

were

among

hefirsto

embracereud.

hey

nlisted is

heories,

articu-

larly

hat

f

repression,

o battle

puritanism,

hat

s,

the utdated

morality

ndconventions

dvocated

y

Victorian

ulture.

n

the

1920s, reud'siews,r,moreccurately,atered-downersionsf

his

deas,

ermeated

merican

opular

ulture.

o

extensive as

he

fascination

ith

sychoanalysis

hat he

ears,

Roebuck

atalogue

offered

uchFreudian-influencedooks

s Ten Thousand reamsnter-

preted

nd

Sex

Problems

olved.

As

the historian

William

Leuchtenburg

has

aptly

oted,

[L]ike

he

automobile,

reudwas

brought

ithin

reachof

everyone. 44

hat the

public

reached orwas new moral


16/32

NewYork

eceptionf

Pierrot

unaire

683

directions,

pecifically

enetso

replace

r

augment

hose

fthe

wan-

ing

Christian

hurch.

ften,

owever,

his

earch

merely

nvolved

distorting

reudianheoryo sanctionexual

ermissiveness

ndother

indiscretions.45

One of hemost isible

igns

fFreud'snfluencen

American

society

as he

prinkling

f

psychoanalytic

argon

n

popular

is-

course.

his

erminology

lsodusts hereviewsf

Pierrot,

n

which

such eferenceso

psychoanalysis

nd

mental

nstability

s

subcon-

scious,

paranoiac,

deranged,

neurotic,

psychoses,

insane,

hysteric,

nd

hyper-eroticppear requently.

ot

surprisingly,

Rosenfeld'seview as hemosttronglyffinedith reudianheory.

During

he

prewar

ears,

he ritic

layed prominent

ole

n

radical

intellectual

nd rtistic

ircles,

otablyontributing

o the even

rts,

a

leading ublication

f

thatmilieu.With

everal f ts

key

writers,

namely

WaldoFrank

nd

Randolph

ourne,

rawing

pon

reud,

hat

journal layed

significant

ole

n

the

disseminationfhis

deas.

Of

note

reAlfred

ooth

Kuttner's

ssays

n

the

reative

rocess,

hich

discuss

he

ignificance

f he

rtist's

nconscious

nd

the

nspiration

releasedyneurosis.46osenfeld'sarticipationnthe even rts nd

his

nterest

n

new

ntellectualnd esthetic

evelopments

ndoubt-

edly

amiliarized

im

with reud's

heoriesnd

encouraged

im,

n

a

less

ystematic

ay

han

Kuttner,

o

explore

he

psychoanalytic

aspects

f

rtistic

reation.47

Such n

approach

merges

n

Rosenfeld'seview

fPierrot.

s

seen

n

the

xcerptresented

bove,

e

gesturesndirectly

oward

Freud,

voking

n

a

general ay

wo

key

sychoanalytic

oncepts:

hysteria

ndcastration.he directink

o

Freud,

hough,

s the

earlier-quotedhrasesmotheredesire, hich sRosenfeld'soetic

variantf heFreudian

atchwords

repressed

r

suppressed

desires. o

widely

sedwere hese

hrases

nd

the

governing

on-

cept

f

repression

hat he

writers

usan

Glaspell

nd

George

ram

Cook

employed

hem

n

their

ne-act

omedy

uppressed

esires

poof-

ing

heGreenwich

illage

ntellectuals.

osenfeld's

eview,

lthough

not omical

n

tone,

ould

ave

provided

aterialor hat

lay.

he

critic hematicizes

epression

n

various

ays

hroughout

he

review,

emphasizing,s Kuttneridwith he nonymousrtist,herelation-

ship

etween ierrotnd

Schoenberg's

eep

ubconscious

ool.

Rosen-

feld

hears

his

pool bubbling

p,

or

attempting

o do

so,

in

boththe

composer

nd the work. or

nstance,

choenberg,

nhis

opinion,

suffersrom he

repression

f sensual

mpulses:

The refined

urning

sensuousnessf

Wagner,

f

Debussy,

nd ofScriabine

eems

odged

n

[Schoenberg];earing

t his flesh

or

gress.

ike that

uppressed


17/32

684

TheMusical

uarterly

carnality,

muted

anguish

tirs

n

Pierrot:The

tones

refull

f

anguish;f nguishlmostuffocated;ut rummingndroaring

underneathheblanketf

ilence.

lthough

hat

nguish

ails

o

rip

through

he

ppressive

lanket, osenfeld,

roviding

briefmoment

ofrelief

rom

is

repression

otif,

laims hat

smothered

esire,

one

related

o

the

ppressiveness

f

mechanization,

anages

o break

loose

n

Pierrot.

Pierrot

as ssociatedot

only

with

reudian

sychoanalysis

nd

general

ental

nstability,

ut

lso

with

ecadence

ndthe

moral

poverty

hat erm

onnotes.

earing

ccusationsf

decadence,

he

reviewsf heworkoined hevigorousebatever alues hat

engaged

merican

ociety

uring

he1920s.

his

ulturaliscords

today

erhaps

ost

losely

dentified

ith

uch

pposing

ovements

as

the

Prohibition

ampaign

f he irelessntivice

ocietiesndthe

new

youth

ulture,

ith ts

female

dol,

he

flapper.48

he

general

conflictetweenraditionnd

change

n

which

hesemovements

participated

lso

raged

round he rts.

t

should

e noted hat he

former

osition

as

partlypheld

y

he

genteel

radition,hich,

s

mentionedbove, romotedhe rts s a moral ealmnddemanded

that hosewho

pursued

hem,

ithers

creatorsras

recipients,

ave

a virtuous

haracter.uchviewswere

widely

eld

n

American

usi-

cal

life,

s

seen

n

the

followingpinions

f wo

eople

who

ccupied

very

ifferent

ositions

n

thatworld.Mrs.

W.

A.

Harper,

n amateur

musiciannd

upporter

f

performance

rganizations,

elievedhat

music

onveyed

truth

nd

goodness,

nd

the

onductorrank am-

rosch ontended

hat thenobler he

rt,

henoblerhould

e

the

interpreter.

49

During

he

1920s,

he

relationship

etweenrt nd

morality,

among

ther

ssues,

ecame

art

f

highlyublic ispute

n

ntellec-

tual

ircles,

itting

heNew

Humanists,

group

f onservativeca-

demics

nd rtistsed

by rving

abbitt

nd

Paul

Elmer

Moore,

gainst

various

rtistsnd

criticslliedwithmodernistrends.50he

former

championed

moral

onception

f

rt,

which

n

their

iscussions

most ften

meant

iterature,

nd

tressedhe

vital ole f

he

values

upheld

y

Victorianism.51

n

addition,

hey

xcoriatedhemodernists

forbandoninguch alues. hat ensure asnotwhollyallacious,

for

hemodernists

id

reject

raditional

alues;

owever,

hey

lso

searchedor

ew nes o

replace

hem. s thewriter alcolm

owley

described,

is

young eneration

elonged

to a

period

f transition

from alues

lready

ixed o values hathad

to be created. 52Walter

Lippmann's

Preface

o Morals

1929)

marked n

importanttep

n

that

reation.He realized he need for

new moral

ystem,

ne

that,


18/32

NewYork

eception

f

Pierrot

unaire

685

unlike he

Victorian

odel,

would

e

based n

necessity,

ommon

sense, nd,mostmportantly,xperience. 53

It

is the

voices f

moral

raditionather

han

hose f

hange

that

whisperhrough

he

reception

fPierrot.n

attacking

he

work,

several

ritics

ropagated

he

inkage

f

modernism

ith

mmorality,

or,

s

they

alled

t,

decadence. he

term

decadence

efies

oncise

definitionr

specific

pplication

o a

cultural

eriod.

tretched

n

a

variety

f

directions,

t

hasbecome

polysemous

hrase,

oid f

ny

authentic

eaning.54

owever,n her

tudyf

fin-de-siacle

ulture,

Elaine

howalter

solatesne

broad

sage

f he

erm:

[I]t

was he

pejorativeabel ppliedy hebourgeoisieoeverythinghat eemed

unnatural,

rtificial,

nd

perverse,

rom rt

Nouveau o

homosexual-

ity. 55

rawing

pon

his

sage,

ritics

f

Pierrot

randished

he

word

decadence

o

disparage

he

work;

owever,

onsistent

ith

he

vagueness

f he

erm,

t s

unclear

hat

hey

pecifically

iewed s

decadent.

ather

han

ingling

ut

particular

eature,

hey

ast

broad

spersions

n

both he

moral oundness

fthe

piece

nd

Schoen-

berg's

haracter.56

he

Herald

eviewer

1923)

claimed

hat ierrot

verg[ed]ndecadence, hileWarrentated hat he ext ossessed

a decadent

entiment.

he

Evening

elegram

ritic

1923)

wasmore

condemnatory,

abeling

oth

choenberg

ndthe

moods

n

his

work

diabolical,

close

ompanionhrase

f

decadence.57

ownes

dwelled

articularly

n the ssue

f

morality.

e

called

choenberg

a

highly

ifted

ecadent

hohad

produced

mawkish

iece.

More-

over,

e

regarded

ierrot

s

fundamentally

nhealthy,

ephitic,

nd

in

deplorable

eed ffresh

ir,

ualities

hat

ontrast

ith

full-

blooded,ital ind f rt.

Downes's

iagnosis

f

ll

health

eveals

ow

losely

metaphors

f

deterioration

irculated

round ierrot.

s

described

y

many

ritics,

the

work estered

n

the

oncert

all. t

at once

conveyed

oral

lip-

page, hysicalecay,

ndthe

rosion

f

anity.

hese

disintegrations

served

s

symptoms

f

decadence,

hich,

n

turn,

as

ymptomatic

f

a

larger

ultural

ecay.

As

John

.

Reed

points

ut

n

his

tudy

f

decadence

n

nineteenth-

nd

twentieth-century

rts,

hat

ague

erm

connoted

ultural

egeneration.58

lthough

eviewers

fPierrot

id

not pecificallyelate hework o a broadulturalecay,heireneral

accusations

fdecadence

ndtheir

ndulgence

n

metaphors

f

degen-

eration eveal

how

they

aw

Schoenberg'siece

as

part

f the

deterio-

rating

world

utside f

the

concert

all,

especially

he

weakening

f

such

foundationsf

society

s

health,

mental

tability,

nd

morality.

Critics

lso

pushed

he

debate

ver

Pierrot

nto

thesocial

realm

by

connecting

he

workwith

adical

olitical

deologies,

articularly


19/32

686 The

Musical

uarterly

anarchism.

his

inkage

tems

rom

he

high

rofile

f

narchism

nd

othereftistoliticalmovementsnNewYork eforend fterhe

war.

Key

igures

nd

organizations

n

these

ctivities

ncluded

ohn

Reed,

Emma

Goldman,

he

ndustrial

orkers

f he

World

IWW),

andthe

magazine

he

Masses.59

hat

istinguishes

he

prewar

ove-

ments

romhe

hose

f he

1920s s

the

lose

ollaboration

etween

artistsnd

political

adicals,

bond

hat

roke nder

he

weight

f

the

disillusionment

roducedy

he

onflict.60

his

arlier

oopera-

tive

pirit

an be seen

n

the

wo

roups'

nvolvement

n

both

he

Armoryhow ndthePatersontrikeageanttMadisonquare

Garden

f1913.

Many

f he

ame

igures

ho

publicly

upported

modern

rt,

notably

abel

Dodge,

Reed,

nd

Lippmann,

lso

helped

to

organize

he

pageant

o benefit

triking

ill

workers

n

Paterson.61

These

ulturalebels

elievedhat

he

rts nd

radicalism

hared

liberatingpirit

nd

that ach

had

an

important

ole

n

brushingway

conventions

nd

fostering

ew

personal

reedoms.s

Margaret

nder-

son,

ditor

f heLittle

eview,

oncisely

tated,

[A]narchism

nd

rt

are

n

the

world

or he

ame

easons. 62

Anderson'squation,lthougheconfiguredrom erpersonal

radical

ision,

layed prominent

ole

n

the

reception

f

modernist

styles

n

New

York

uring

he

period

915-29,

s

both

upporters

nd

opponents

f

hose dioms

inked

conoclastic

ompositional

evelop-

ments ith

he

goals

nd

policies

f

eftist

olitical

movements.he

former

iewedmusic

nd

politics

s

surging

long

n

emancipatory

wave hat

would rush he

bulwarkf

radition,

hereashe

atter

believed

hatmodernist

nnovationsnd

radical

olitics

ropelled

he

same isruptivendthreateningorces.63his ntimodernistiew,

which

ominated

hereviews

f

Pierrot,

as

uccinctly

xpressed

y

the ritic

nd

composerenry

olden

Huss

n

a

1917

ssay

hat

attacked

ot

Schoenberg's

elodramautnew

music

n

general:

It

s

withoutoubt rue

hat he

restlessness,

he

avage,

eckless,

narchis-

tic

pirit

hich

as

manifestedtself

n

politics

nd

ulminated

n

the

presentigantic

arhas

also

mightily

ffecteduch

delicate,

ensi-

tive

rt s

Music. 64

Huss's

olitical arallelppears

t the

utset f heNew

York

reception

fPierrot.nhisreviewf 1912Berlin

erformance

f he

work,

uneker

alled

choenberg

n anarchist

ndwent

o far

s to

compare

im

o Max

Stirner,

German

hilosopher

ho

dvocated

individualism

ndthe

breaking

ree

rom hat

he viewed

o

be the

irrationalaws

of

society.

Although

he

1923 and 1925

reviewsmade

no

such

pecific

ssociations,

hey

einforced

he

political

nalogy,


20/32

New

York

eceptionf

Pierrot

unaire

687

labeling

hework

radical,

anarchistic,

nd

revolutionary.

s

seen nHuneker'sndHuss's omments,hese hargedpithetsot

only

eferredo the

disintegration

f

ompositional

onventions

ut

also

lluded

o a

larger

ocial

nrest,

turmoil

pitomized

ypolitical

movements

ike

narchism.

Although

hedebate ver he1923 nd

1925

performances

involved

he ame ssues nddrew imilarultural

onnections,

he

response

o

the atter

eveals

greater

ppreciation

f he

work,

ar-

ticularly

n

the reas fharmonic

anguage

nd

expression.

he invec-

tive

hat

haracterized

any

f he

riginal

eviews as

mostly

bsent

inthose f he econd oncert.his

hange

ntonewas

argely

ue

to the ransition

ithinhe

riticalanks

uring

he

ntervening

wo

years.Many

f he everest

pponents

fmodern

usic,

amely

he

Old Guard

ritics,

adeither ied rretired.

urprisingly,

enderson,

the

nly

ctive

member

f he

Old

Guard,

raised

he

work,

alling

it

tremendouslynteresting.

ierrot,

owever,

till

ad everaldver-

saries. eonard

iebling

alled t

a

phantasmagoria

f

blarings,

shriekings,owlings,

runtings,

ear-bombs

n

tone,

musical

miasmas

andvocal ndorchestraloison ases. ther issentersncluded

NewmanndWarren.

The

work lso eft

many

ritics

umbfoundedndunable

o

formulateclear

pinion.

oth andbornnd

Thompson,

wo

er-

plexed

ritics

n

1923,

till

ound he

work

baffling

nd

puzzling,

respectively.

he latter

egarded

ierrots a

riddle

ot

o

be solved

in

a

day, year,

r a

decade.

wo

of

he

trongest

upporters

ere

Gilman

ndthe

unsigned

usical ourier

eviewer,

ho

laimed

hat

theperfectionf his core efiesriticism.' 65

In

additiono the

passing

f he ritical

uard,

his

wo-year

period

marked

significant

ncrease

n

the

performance

fmodern

music,

trend

ue

argely

o the ctivities

f he

ompeting

ew

music ocieties.

oreover,

everal f he

prominent

erformingrga-

nizations,

ncluding

ymphonic

ndchamber

nsembles,

egan

o

program

oremodern

usic. he

exposure

o a wider

ariety

f on-

temporary

tyles

obbed ierrotf ts

eputation

s

the

pitome

f

modernity.

ownes,

or

nstance,

oncluded,

To us

this

ppears

s

musicfyesterday,elongingo a periodndpose haracteristicf

the

post-romantics

ndof

nflated,

gotistical

endencieshich re

happily alling

way.

His attitude

eflectshe

postwar

ntipathy

toward

omanticism,

n

aversion

articularly

anifestedn

the

clarity

and restraintf

neoclassical

tyles,

hichDownes

frequently

is-

cussed.66

n

fact,

his

wo-year

nterveningeriod

witnessedn

influx


21/32

688

The

Musical

uarterly

ofneoclassical

orks,

any

f

which

eceivederious

riticaltten-

tion, articularlytravinsky'symphoniesfWindnstruments,ctet,

andConcerto or iano ndWinds.

This ncreased

amiliarity

ith

modern

tyles

artly

roded

udi-

ence versiono

new

developments

n

musical

anguage.

significant

difference

etweenhe

receptions

f

he

1923 nd 1925 oncertss

the

ttention

iven

o

Schoenberg's

reak ith

onvention. hereas

many

ritics

f

he arlier

erformance

ecriedhe

omposer's

anar-

chism,

hose

f he

1925

oncertoncentratedn the ffectather

than henaturef hemusicalanguage.o manyeviewers,isso-

nancewasnot

ven n

issue,

et lone source f larm.

ilman's

comments

n

his

econd

earing

f

he

piece

estify

o this

ccep-

tance:

Yet

o

rapidly

oesmusic

ge

andmellowhat he

cerbity

which nce eemed

n essentialrait f

he

tyle

f Pierrotunaire'

wasdifficult

o detect

n

our

hearing

f

he

workast

night.

r

per-

haps

t s

merely

hat he

nfinitelydjustable

uman ar

has,

n

our

case t

least,

made

ts

peace

with hismusic.

Coupled

with

he

cceptance

f

Schoenberg's

tyle

as

growing

skepticismver he estheticotentialfhismusicalanguage.

Thompson,

enderson,

ndDownes

elievedhat

he

omposer

ad

reachedn

impasse

n

Pierrot

ith

is

rejection

f

raditionalonal

andmelodic

ractices.

enderson

laimed,

No

great

rt an be

built

upon

his ndeterminate

oundation

28

Feb.

1925).

Thompson

added

hat he

mastery

f

he

work

put

choenberg

ndhisfollow-

ers

n

a cul-de-sac

atherhan

. .

open[ing]

ny

new

dominionsor

the onal rt.

While 925 eviewersay ave uestionedheviabilityf

Schoenberg's

usic,

hey

enerally

pproved

f

he ntense

xpressive-

ness f

Pierrot.ather han

eproaching

im

or

xceeding

he

proper

bounds f

elf-expression,

s

was

done

n

1923,

many

ritics

raised

his

maginative

etting.

ven

Downes,

n admitted

etractorf

he

composer,

ound

he

work o

be

Schoenberg

t

hisbest-at

his

most

precise

nd

expressive,

dding

hat

it s

mpossible

o

magine

he

music

omposed

n

any

ther

ay.

Gilman

laimed

hat he

vividness

of

he

ompositionrovedust

s

striking

s in the

premiererfor-mance:Yet ne

mpression

emainedor sunchanged:hat f he

mordant

ower

f

his

trange

eb

f

ones,

ts

xtraordinary

xpres-

siveness,

ts wift

onformity

o

theutterancef score f

different

moods.

He also

disputed

he viewthat he

subject

matter fthe text

was not

worthy

f

musical

etting

y

pointing

ut

thatbothSchoen-

berg

nd

Shakespeare

xplored

areas

f the human

onsciousness

remote rom

he nfluencefsweetness

nd

light.


22/32

New

York

eceptionf

Pierrotunaire 689

In

addition

o

being

neof hemost candalous orksf he

1920snNewYork, ierrotasalsoproveno beone of hemost

durable,

or thasbeen

reprised

here ften.

econfirming

ts nitial

goal

o

familiarize

udiencesurtherith he

hallengingiece,

he

League

f

Composers

ffered

he hird ewYork

erformance

n

16

April

933.This

taged

ersion

y

Robert dmond

ones

eatured

Stokowskind

Mina

Hager.

even

years

ater,

choenberg

ulfilledis

desire o

present

ierrot

n

the

ity.

ponsored

y

heNewFriends

f

Music,

e ledErika

tiedry-Wagner

n

a concert

t TownHall

on

17

November

940.

Thereceptionf hesewo erformanceseveals ewpermuta-

tions

n

the

general

musical

xpectations,

s audiences

erceived

ier-

rot

uite

ifferently

han

hey

id

n 1923

nd 1925.

Rather han

incitingtrong

ebuker

praise,

s

it

did

during

he

1920s,

he

mo-

tionality

f hework

asnow

viewed s

cool

andeven

rivial. or

instance,

ownes,

n

admirer

f

he

ntensity

f

he

core

n

1925,

labeled

ierrot

tepid

nd

anemic

n

1933.67

ilman

ikewise

viewed hework

s

sterile nd artificial. 68

fter

he

1940

perfor-

mance, rancis erkinsnterpretedhe motionalontentf hework

in

a

different

ight,

rguing

hat

t

was oorefined

or

ontemporary

audiences:

The

present-dayeriod

s not

onducive

o the

ubtiliza-

tion f motion

hich

ervades

he

ext

ndthe

remarkablecore.

He

added

hat

the motional

imits

f he

music

ere rather

narrow

ompared

o those

f

the

ext.69

The

response

o the1933 nd

1940

oncertslso ncluded

dispute

ver he

modernity

f

Pierrot,

n issue

nitially

aised,

utnot

fullyxplored,n1925.Whereashe nnovative usicalanguagend

expressiveness

ere hemost

ontestedssues

uring

he

1920s,

ritics

nowfocusedn

evaluating

he

imelinessf he

work. eviewsf he

composition

re

argely

ivided etween

hose

onsidering

t a

histori-

cal

piece epresenting

he

pirit

f

past

ime nd

those

egarding

t

as a modern ork ommunicative

o

a

contemporary

udience.

For

many

eviewers,

he ura f

modernity

round ierrotad

completely

issolved.he musical

anguage

o

longer

roved

ovel,

andthework asviewed s

having

ittle

ontemporary

elevance.

Gilman,ornstance,laimed hat twas horriblyld-fashioned

andhad

aged itifully. 70

erkins

awPierrot

s music f he

past,

and recommendedhat t

be

reprisedccasionally only

s

a

period

piece. 71

ikethose wo

critics,

ownes

originally

iewed he work s

dated.

n

his

1933

review,

e

calledthe

composition

a fiftiethcho

of

nineteenth-century

erman

omanticism;owever,

choenberg's

performance

f

Pierrot,

hich

he claimed

revealed

the

work's]


23/32

690 The

Musical

uarterly

secret,

hanged

is

opinion.

ather

han

ismissing

he

melodrama

as a historicalddity,e nowpraisedts provocativeodernity.

Pierrot,

ccording

o

Downes,

ada

genuineness

nd

presentalidity

for

ontemporary

udiences.72

he

criticnd

composer

. Walter

Kramer

greed

ith

ownes's

ater

osition,laiming

hat hework

was s

modern

s at the ime f tsNew

York

remiere.73

his

gen-

eral ritical

ispute

ver he imelessness

fPierrotnd

Downes's acil-

lation eveal ow

harply

iews

f he

omposition

urnedround

perceptions

f

ts

modernity.

Thehistorical/contemporaryichotomylso arge

the new york reception of pierrot lunaire

Documents