A very convincing presentation. It figures that there would be an extra-musical rationale for the structuring of this otherwise inexplicable though fascinating piece.
How come neither the conductor nor Taruskin seem to notice the concert B coming out of the alto clarinet, every time they play the opening chord (and, it seemed, every time that chord returns)??? In the 1920 score, it's Alto Clarinet in F with a notated D, sounding concert G, and sustained thru the first two entire measures (The 1947 score has the concert G in the 3rd clarinet, and changes octaves several times).
Taruskin was a fully trained and working viola da gama player having first learned cello as a youngster in order to play trios with his piano teacher mother and his accomplished amateur violinist father.
The octotonic scale was popular with more Russian composers than just Rimsky. And Debussy used it too (possibly under the influence of the Russians) -- that wonderful "polytonal(*)" section of the first movement of Iberia. (*)Since the octotonic scale contains four major triads and four minor triads. And in Iberia the octotonic scale "eases into" the diatonic scale almost exactly the same way as Tarushkin points out that Stravinsky uses towards the end of Symphonies.
I think that the crowd scenes in Petrushka (1911) are already in "block" or "moment" form. He also used it for the "crowd scene" (the village festival) in Baiser de la Fée. It has always seemed "cinematic" to me -- all the themes (people's actions?) are really happening continually and simultaneously, but the "camera" keeps focusing from one to another. (One critic also described the blocks as alternately "listening to" different layers of music which are "actually" happening simultaneously, in the imagination.) I completely agree that, for whatever reason, Stravinsky anticipated Stockhausen's moment form. And I agree with Tarushkin that it is very ritualistic -- like Stravinsky's overtly religious music.
So composers are the only ones who should be allowed to talk about music then? As a professional "doer," I have found Taruskin's work to be incredibly illuminating.
@@rvaughanwilliams1988 I am also a Taruskin fan, and your point about authorial authority is very pertinent in this case, for Stravinsky has shown himself to be pretty unreliable when it comes to... well, practically anything.
This is just bollocks. You've found a remark by Woody Allen which appeals to you, and applied it at random in order to make an appearance on-line. Have you actually read anything by Taruskin? I recommend (though I'm probably wasting my time) his book on early Stravinsky, and his book on music "From the Earliest Notations to the 16th Century". Taruskin was a keen player of early music, even auditioning for the New York Pro Musica.
