Upload
zacharias-tarpagkos
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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.
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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,
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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-
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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.
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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,
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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,
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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.
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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]
8/18/2019 The New York Reception of Pierrot Lunaire
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