Stravinsky, Bartok and the Octatonic Collection:

A study in contrast

Forrest Wakeman

December 15, 2013

This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Musical Arts

Degree in Piano Performance at Michigan State University.

 Wakeman - 1

In considering the composers of the early twentieth century, Bartok and Stravinsky are two names

that come to the top of the list as significant innovators. There are many similarities between them – they

both enjoyed success in Europe, both were outstanding pianists, both utilized folk music in various ways

in their compositions, both explored alternate approaches to harmony, rhythm, and pitch organization, and

both eventually relocated to the United States, although under very different circumstances. Taruskin

actually went so far as to say, “[Stravinsky] and Bartok ought by rights to have become a

historiographical pair, a cliché like Bach and Handel, Mozart and Haydn, Debussy and Ravel.”1

Both composers also utilized many of the same raw harmonic materials, including considerable

use of the octatonic collection. However, their approaches to octatonic materials were very different,

from both a theoretical and an aesthetic perspective. This study will explore each composer’s approach to

the octatonic collection individually and will attempt to compare and contrast the two, highlighting

similarities and differences in an effort to bring some new insight into a sometimes thorny area of

discussion in music theory.

To lay a bit of ground work, it is important to understand that the octatonic collection, as referred

to in this study, is a symmetrical collection of pitch classes featuring alternating half and whole step

intervals. In Allen Forte’s set theory analysis method, it is given the identifying set number 8-282. The

octatonic collection is limited to only three possible unique transpositions (shown in example 1). It is

typically presented in most texts as an ordered collection, but it is often not used as an ordered collection.

Many people even mistakenly refer to it as a scale, but the word scale typically implies a clear tonic as

well as a specific ordering of pitches in relationship to that tonic. Due to its symmetrical structure, it is

impossible to establish a true functional tonic within the octatonic collection – as a matter of fact, later we

1
Richard Taruskin, “Why you Cannot Leave Bartok Out,” Studia Micologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, T.
47, Fasc. 3 / 4, Bartok’s Orbit: The Context and Sphere of Influence of his work. Proceedings of the International
Conference held by the Bartok Archives, Budapest (22-24 March 2006). Part I (September 2006): 271
2
Forte’s system provides an analysis for only the half-step first arrangement of the octatonic collection; the whole-
step first arrangement can be easily derived from his set # 8-28 by rotation.
 Wakeman - 2

will see that some Stravinsky scholars purport that there are at least four possible pitches that could serve

as a “tonic” within the octatonic collection; to me, even this seems like a stretch, as tonality within the

confines of a symmetrical collection of pitches is most commonly established by assertion rather than by

any functional application of the notes in the collection.

Example 1 – Octatonic collection and its two possible transpositions.

When dealing with works by Stravinsky and Bartok that often have an established tonal center,

the question that begs answering is what nomenclature to use when discussing the octatonic collection.

For the sake of clarity and consistency, in cases such as this, I will refer to the octatonic collection

beginning on the tonic note (i.e. the first movement of Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms, which is clearly

built on a tonal center of E, would utilize the octatonic collection built on E). Note that this does not

imply E as the tonic of the collection; rather, it is a method of organizing symmetrical material for the

sake of being able to discuss it with some clarity.

 Wakeman - 3

Part I - Stravinsky

Stravinsky’s use of the octatonic collection is not surprising, as he worked closely as a student of

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, who utilized the octatonic collection (and to a lesser extent the whole tone and

other symmetrical collections) in much of his own music.3 In Stravinsky’s earliest works we can hear the

octatonic collection employed in a manner that nearly mirrors that of his mentor and other significant

Russian composers of the time (including Mussorgsky and Glinka). Walsh, in describing the Scherzo

Fantastique, says: “Here we find, taken to the point of obsession, the typical artificial scales based on

equal divisions of the octave (the augmented triad, the diminished seventh, the whole-tone and octatonic

scales) which had been the stock-in-trade of Russian musical magic since Lyudmila’s abduction…”4

The basic premise of Rimsky-Korsakov’s use of the octatonic collection centered around the

symmetrical aspects of the collection. Harmonically, he would use the diminished seventh chord (Forte

#4-28) either as an entity unto itself or as an organizational factor. He also utilized familiar triads (major,

minor, and dominant seventh quality) built on the four pitches that equally subdivide the octave (0,3,6,9)

in the octatonic collection (see example 2). 5 Melodically, he extensively utilized the 0235 tetrachord

(Forte # 4-10). This tetrachord had dual purposes in terms of its function. It could be derived from the

octatonic collection (using the whole-step first rotation of the collection), but it also shared pitches with

the first half of the traditional minor scale (see example 3) and the Dorian mode, which is actually

comprised of two 0235 tetrachords in sequence. This allowed for fairly seamless transitions between

octatonic material and more diatonic material within a piece of music (see example 3a).

3
Pieter VandenToorn, Stravinsky and the Rite of Spring (Berkely: University of California Press, 1987), 119.
4
Stephen Walsh, The Music of Stravinsky (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 16.
5
VandenToorn, Rite of Spring, 119.
 Wakeman - 4

Example 2 – Octatonic collection as used by Rimski-Korsakov, featuring subdivision of the octave

by minor thirds.

Example 3 – Octatonic collection showing division into a pair of equal, symmetrical tetrachords.

Example 3a – use of the same tetrachord to transition to the Dorian mode

In The Firebird we find perhaps the purest audible instance of Stravinsky paying homage to

Rimsky-Korsakov’s approach to the use of the octatonic collection. It is used as a kind of harmonic

leitmotif, employed to depict the evil supernatural forces of Kaschei’s kingdom. More traditionally

diatonic material, on the other hand, is employed to portray the princesses, Ivan, and the other human

characters in the story. 6

6
Charles M. Joseph, Stravinsky’s Ballets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 41.
 Wakeman - 5

While the octatonic references in Stravinsky’s earliest works are fairly obvious and clearly pay

homage to Rimsky-Korsakov’s influence, his more mature works (beginning with Petroushka) offer some

significant challenges in terms of how to classify their harmonic and tonal frameworks. A new school of

scholarship emerged, starting with Arthur Berger and expanded greatly by Peter VandenToorn; one of the

key elements of this school of thought focused on the octatonic collection as an overarching

organizational factor in many of Stravinsky’s pieces.

Berger first applies the octatonic collection to one of the most famous sonorities in all of

Stravinsky’s output – the so-called “Petroushka chord”, a simultaneous C major and F# major sonority

that for many years was interpreted as having implications of bitonality. 7 Berger, however, posits that

this sonority can be satisfactorily explained as a hexachordal subset of the octatonic collection (see

example 4a and 4b).8 While Berger avoids making further claims for the Petroushka chord, VandenToorn

expands significantly on Berger’s theory, drawing the conclusion that the octatonic collection offers the

possibility for four distinct tonal centers based on the four symmetrical subdivisions of the octatonic

collection (0,3,6,9, the four pitches making up a diminished seventh chord), and makes a case that

Stravinsky was consciously aware of this relationship in the larger-scale structure of Petroushka9 – the

first instance of the Petroushka chord uses major triads built on 0 and 6 (C and F#), but when the chord

reappears in the Third Tableau of the ballet, it uses major triads built on 3 and 9 (Eb and A). The

aggregate of these four chords forms the complete octatonic collection beginning on C (see example 5).

Taruskin takes this even further, making the claim that the entire Second Tableau of Petroushka can be

7
Interestingly, a study done related to how people perceive music found that most people perceive this sonority
as bi-tonal rather than as octatonic, even though the octatonic explanation makes better sense from a
theoretician’s perspective. See “The Petroushka Chord: A Perceptual Investigation,” Music Perception: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Winter, 1986): 153-184.
8
Arthur Berger, “Problems of Pitch Organization in Stravinsky,” Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 2, No.1 (Autumn –
Winter, 1963): 23.
9
Pieter Vandentoorn, The Music of Igor Stravinsky (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 463.
 Wakeman - 6

analyzed octatonically, based on an extension of VandenToorn’s ideas.10 This seems to me to be a bit far

fetched – I believe that Taruskin, in his ambition to find a satisfactory explanation, works too hard at

times to make the music fit his method.

Example 4a – Petroushka Chord

Example 4b – Petroushka Chord pitch classes shown as a subset of the octatonic collection

Example 5 – Octatonic collection aggregate formed by the triads on 0 and 6 in the 2nd tableau and 3

and 9 in the 3rd tableau of Petroushka

10
Richard Taruskin, “Chez Petrouchka: Harmony and Tonality ‘chez’ Stravinsky,” 19th Century Music, Vol.
10, No. 3, Special Issue: Resolutions I (Spring, 1987): 269.
 Wakeman - 7

The Rite of Spring is perhaps the most challenging of Stravinsky’s earlier ballets to quantify and

analyze in terms of its harmonic content and structure. Yet, many of its most significant moments appear

to be derived from or informed by the octatonic collection. In fact, VandenToorn calls it “one of the most

thoroughly octatonic of Stravinsky’s works…”11 We find the octatonic collection utilized in melodic

material in the use of 0-2-3-5 tetrachords; we find it used organizationally in terms of its intersection with

other tonally-derived constructs (including diatonic scales, the major triad and the dominant seventh

chord); and we find it used vertically with all eight pitches of the collection used as a simultaneity.

Melodic material in The Rite of Spring is often derived from subsets of the octatonic collection.

The most commonly appearing of these is the 0235 tetrachord (Forte # 4-10). Several sample melodic

passages used in The Rite of Spring demonstrate this tetrachord, lending credence to the possibility that

these melodic ideas were based on the octatonic collection (see example 6 for three of them).

Example 6 – three instances of melodic material featuring the 0235 tetrachord

11
VandenToorn, Rite of Spring, 123.
 Wakeman - 8

In the case of the excerpt from Ritual of the Rival Tribes, VandenToorn makes the case that the

melodic materials in the brass form the complementary 0235 tetrachord, and that the two melodic

fragments combine to form a full aggregate of the octatonic collection (see example 7).12

Example 7 – Ritual of the Rival Tribes showing complementary 0235 tetrachords and aggregate

collection.

The 0235 tetrachord demonstrates horizontal (melodic) usage of the octatonic collection;

Stravinsky also uses the collection vertically. In a manner similar to that seen in the Petroushka chord, we

find Stravinsky superimposing two major triads onto one another to create dissonant harmonic structures

that are based on the octatonic collection. One such example is found in the Augurs of Spring. The main

“Augurs chord” is an Eb dominant seventh chord superimposed on an E major triad, which is not strictly

an octatonic collection simultaneity, but a similar sonority, found later in the Augurs of Spring and again

12
VandenToorn believes that the F# in the brass parts is ornamental (Stravinsky and the Rite of Spring, 126), while
Peter Hill proposes that perhaps the G is the ornamental note and that the melodic material in the woodwinds is
actually based on the D dorian mode, for which the 0235 tetrachord is its first four pitches. Stravinsky: The Rite of
Spring (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 48.
 Wakeman - 9

in the Ritual of Abduction, features an Eb dominant seventh superimposed with a C major triad, which

does seem to be derived octatonically (see examples 8 and 9).13

Example 8 – superimposed Eb dominant seventh and C Major chords from Augurs of Spring

Example 9 – the same chord, appearing in the Ritual of Abduction, rehearsal 37

The third way the octatonic collection influences the organization of The Rite of Spring is as an

organizing factor for other materials. For example, in the Ritual of Abduction, a series of four major

chords appears, superimposed with one another in various ways. When analyzed, these four chords turn

out to be built on the 0,3,6,9 subdivisions of the octatonic collection built on C, and the pitches contained

in them form the aggregate octatonic set (see example 10). This is one of the most clearly octatonic

sections in the entire work.

13
Hill, The Rite of Spring, 47.
 Wakeman - 10

Example 10 – Ritual of Abduction, rehearsal 42, triads built on octatonic subdivisions

The final Stravinsky work I would like to reference in terms of the octatonic collection is from his

neoclassical period. The opening movement of the Symphony of Psalms features alternating sections of

diatonic and octatonic materials, linked in a way that demonstrates Stravinsky’s awareness of the

octatonic collection’s ability to intersect with traditional diatonic sonorities. The work opens with a very

uniquely voiced E minor chord, followed by arpeggiated material that is clearly octatonic in nature

(drawn from the octatonic collection on E), but comprised of tonally-derived constructs – a Bb dominant

seventh paired with a G dominant seventh chord. These tonal chords are used non-functionally to

establish the octatonic collection from the outset.14 The octatonic material becomes superimposed with

14
Elliott Antokoletz, The Music of Bela Bartok, (Berkely: University of California Press, 1984), 320.
 Wakeman - 11

pitches from the e natural minor scale at bar 5; then three bars before rehearsal 2, the piano plays an

extremely clear F dorian mode scale. This is a natural extension of the octatonic collection, as its first

four notes form a 0235 tetrachord based on the octatonic collection (see example 11).

Example 11 – Symphony of Psalms, I (3 bars before rehearsal 2)

At rehearsal 2, the piano part becomes clearly non-octatonic, and is probably most easily

analyzed as playing the white-note Phrygian mode collection. Still, the octatonic collection holds some

organizational sway here; the half-step between the first two pitches of the E Phrygian collection are

identical to the first two notes of the octatonic collection utilized in the movement, and this relationship

helps link the two sections together.

Rehearsal 4 is an example of one of the most truly octatonic passages in all of Stravinsky’s

writing. Here, an ostinato in the woodwind section clearly lays out the full aggregate collection as an
 Wakeman - 12

accompaniment for the choral part, which sings a chant-like melody consisting of just two notes – the E

and F that feature prominently as both the first two notes of the octatonic collection and the first two notes

of the E Phrygian mode referenced earlier (see example 12).

Example 12 – Rehearsal 4 showing woodwind ostinato and choral entrance

 Wakeman - 13

While there are numerous other octatonic elements in the Symphony of Psalms, I will provide one

final example of Stravinsky’s approach to utilizing the octatonic collection. Movement I ends with a

pronounced cadence on a G major triad. This shift from E minor, which is featured at the opening, to G

Major makes sense in light of VandenToorn’s premise that Stravinsky partitioned the octatonic collection

into four parts, each of which can serve as a tonic or key center. The G major triad is preceded by

octatonic material (rehearsal 13) that gives way to G Major and the 3 center of the (0,3,6,9) pitches in the

octatonic collection.

Stravinsky’s approach to the octatonic collection is, in my opinion, at the same time structured

and highly intuitive. He seems to favor materials, especially vertical sonorities, that bring to mind more

traditionally tonal constructs (i.e. major and minor triads, dominant seventh chords), even when he

superimposes them on top of one another. It seems to me that Stravinsky uses octatonic materials

consciously but not conscientiously – if additional coloration was needed, he felt free to add pitches from

related diatonic scales or other chords to serve the sound he was seeking. I also believe that, at least in

the case of VandenToorn’s research, that perhaps there is too much being made of the connection

between the octatonic collection and Stravinsky’s compositional process. I feel like VandenToorn’s (and

in some cases Taruskin’s) efforts at detailed analyses based on octatonic collections tend to suck the life

out of the music and strip it down, making it seem as if Stravinsky were nothing more than a music

generating machine.

Part II – Bartok

Bartok’s music seems to be organized in a very different manner than Stravinsky’s. Where

Stravinsky tended to use entire collections, sometimes even superimposing diatonic and octatonic

materials on top of one another or using the octatonic collection as a point of departure to introduce

material from a different diatonic source, Bartok’s approach was to build his harmonic and melodic ideas

from small cells – at their most fundamental level, dyads – and create a sense of tonal center or overall
 Wakeman - 14

“collection” by combining these small cells, usually in symmetrically related ways, to form larger

aggregates. Conversely, analyzing Bartok’s music is often about deconstructing a larger collection of

pitches into its component cells or dyads.

It is much more difficult to analyze Bartok’s music as completely octatonic; in many cases, his

pieces do not unequivocally state the octatonic collection as a whole and are not controlled by the

octatonic collection for long periods of time; the full collection may appear for only a brief section or

sometimes just a measure or two. Rather, Bartok’s music can be analyzed within an octatonic framework

by considering the subsets (tetrachords and dyads) contained within a given octatonic collection. This

technique also allows for analysis of materials that are not octatonic within the same piece.

There are several chords and harmonic entities that are derived from the ocatonic scale that are

utilized frequently by Bartok in his music. There is, first of all, the entire collection configured as two

diminished seventh chords a half-step away from one another. This configuration is labeled by Lendvai

as Bartok’s “alpha chord” and comprises a particular vertical ordering of the aggregate octatonic

collection (Forte # 8-28).15 From this configuration, a number of derivative four- and five-note chordal

structures are derived, many of which appear frequently in Bartok’s compositions (see example 13).

Example 13 – Lendvai’s “Alpha Chord”

15
Paul Wilson, The Music of Bela Bartok (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 25-26.
 Wakeman - 15

When presented horizontally, Lendvai calls the octatonic scale the 1:2 distance model. Example

14 shows the octatonic collection presented horizontally, along with three specific sets derived from it

that have significance in Bartok’s composition.16 Note that each of the sets presented, in both examples

13 and 14, can appear in at least two different transpositions within the overall octatonic collection.

Example 14 – horizontal presentation of the octatonic collection with frequently used sets

An examination of the three subsets presented in example 14 reveals another important aspect of

Bartok’s compositional process that is enabled by the octatonic collection: symmetry. The three

collections 4-9, 4-10, and 4-25, are each symmetrical around a central axis. We have already seen the 4-

10 tetrachord used in melodic material by Stravinsky, but in Bartok’s music, the concept of symmetrical

constructions is taken to almost an excessive level. It could safely be said that much of Bartok’s musical

language is constructed almost entirely around the concept of symmetry. 17

Antokoletz provides a detailed explanation of Bartok’s use of symmetrical systems based on pairs

of intervals. A brief synopsis: “Any collection of two notes is symmetrical, since the two notes are

equidistant from an imaginary axis. If we join a second dyad to the first, with the two notes of the second

dyad equidistant from the same axis of symmetry, a four-note symmetry results.”18 The resulting

tetrachords can then be reconfigured in different ways as well, changing the axis of symmetry (see

example 15 for possible permutations of tetrachord 4-9).

16
Ibid., 26.
17
Antokoletz, Bartok, 68.
18
Ibid, 69.
 Wakeman - 16

Example 15 – permutations of tetrachord 4-9 showing four possible symmetrical arrangements of

the pitches.

Bartok’s Mikrokosmos no. 101, “Diminished Fifth,” is one of his few works where the octatonic

collection is utilized throughout and is a controlling factor for the entire piece. An analysis of this brief

work will provide some examples of how Bartok utilizes symmetrical tetrachords derived from the

octatonic collection.

The piece is based around pairs of 0235 tetrachords (4-11) separated by a tritone. These pairs

combine to form an aggregate octatonic collection. Example 16 shows a breakdown of the tetrachord

pairs (indicated with brackets) and octatonic collections used throughout the piece.

Example 16 – pitch collection breakdown of Mikrokosmos no. 101

Bartok uses all three possible transpositions of the octatonic collection. Bars 1-11, 20-25, and 35-

41 use the “home” collection for this piece (octatonic collection on A) ; bars 12-19 use the collection built
 Wakeman - 17

on Bb; and bars 26-29 use the collection built on B. Bars 30-34 could be interpreted two ways – as a

modal transitional section (the right hand has the Bb Aeolian mode, the left hand E Phrygian) or as an

octatonic collection built on Bb (same materials as bars 12-19) if you consider the Ab and Gb as “non-

chord tones” of a sort. I would lean toward the octatonic interpretation of this passage, although

Antokoletz prefers the modal analysis.19 The final two bars extend both 0235 (4-10) segments down a

whole step to give a sort of medieval cadential feel to the ending.

Another brief work, From the Island of Bali (Mikrokosmos #109), demonstrates Bartok’s use of a

different subset of the octatonic collection. This piece features the 0167 tetrachord (4-9), which due to its

construction from a pair of tritones, tends to result in the least traditionally tonal sounding of any of the

tetrachord subsets Bartok uses (see example 17).20 The piece uses only one transposition of the

collection, and treats the tetrachords in a pseudo-canonic fashion in the opening and closing sections (bars

1-11 and 31-42). The second section uses only one of the two tetrachords for the first four bars (12-16)

and adds the second one back in for the second four bars (17-22)21. The third section of the piece breaks

away from the octatonic collection for a brief time.

19
Antokoletz, Bartok, 252.
20
Richard Cohn, “Bartok’s Octatonic Strategies: A Motivic Approach,” Journal of the American Musicological
Society,Vol. 44, No. 2 (Summer,1991): 272.

21
The Gn in bar 15 appears once only and doesn’t seem to have any analytical significance.
 Wakeman - 18

Example 17 – From the Island of Bali – summary of tetrachords / pitch content by section

A unique element of this piece that is typical of Bartok’s approach to octatonic material in his

larger works is evidenced in the final two bars. In those two measures, the octatonic collection is broken

into two different tetrachords – 0358 (4-26) – after being dominated for the entire piece by 0167

tetrachords. This exemplifies Bartok’s propensity to utilize different partitions of the same octatonic

collection within a larger work. It also demonstrates Bartok’s desire for emergence – in this and several

other larger Bartok works, the appearance of key elements of the octatonic collection (or even of the full

collection itself) is delayed until near the end of a movement or complete composition.22

In terms of larger works, Bartok’s approach to octatonic materials is similar, but much more

developed. He also (obviously) has more time to develop the sense of emergence for the actual octatonic

materials. In the first movement of his Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion, Bartok hints at octatonic

sonorities for much of the first movement, but always dissolves them into something else before allowing

the octatonic collection to finally emerge. Wilson discusses the octatonic collection’s role in the

movement as follows: “it very rarely appears in the movement as an explicit component of the musical

22
Ibid, 275.
 Wakeman - 19

texture. It does, however, supply a series of sets and set types that do so appear, in a great many settings

and guises.”23 Many of these are shown in example 18.

Example 18 – Wilson’s chart of important subsets of the octatonic collection from the Sonata for
Two Pianos and Percussion, 1st movement

A couple of examples of how these forms appear follow (see example 19). In measure 41, the 5-

32 set serves as the accompaniment ostinato, outlining and hinting at the octatonic collection; however,

the bass note G obscures the reference. In bar 50, a six note collection, also a subset of the original

collection, appears for several bars, but fades away in another transformation. This type of continual

partial revelation of the collection goes on for the bulk of the movement.

23
Wilson, Bartok, 139-140.
 Wakeman - 20

Example 19 – Measures 41 and 50 of the Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion

At the Coda (measure 417) Bartok finally reveals the full collection in a fascinating canon at the

minor third (see example 20). Six bars later, the collection appears in a different format, and then twelve

bars after that it appears in a single simultaneity (measure 434). This is a great example of the

aforementioned technique of emergence employed in a larger work.

Example 20 – Coda from movement I of the Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion
 Wakeman - 21

Summary and Conclusions

A comparison of Bartok’s and Stravinsky’s methods of working with the octatonic collection

yields several contrasts. While both composers utilize the same collection of pitches, their intents and the

end results are very different.

Stravinsky seemed to focus his octatonic materials on full sets and their manipulations; uses of

partial octatonic sets are limited primarily to the 0235 tetrachord or to diminished seventh chord vertical

sonorities. Bartok, on the other hand, freely utilizes numerous derivative subsets, including tetrachords,

pentachords, and hexachords drawn from the aggregate collection.

Stravinsky’s octatonic materials are frequently based on structures common to traditional

tonality; Stravinsky loved the major and minor triads, diminished seventh chords, and dominant seventh

chords that could be formed from the octatonic collection; the non-functionality of the collection allowed

him great freedom in how he used these tonal materials in new and different ways. Bartok, on the other

hand, favored subsets of the octatonic collection that were aesthetically distant from tonal constructs (i.e.

the 0167 tetrachord) and usually avoided blatantly tonal sounding materials for any extended period of

time.

Both composers utilized the octatonic collection as an organizational factor in their pieces, but

Stravinsky’s method seems much more free-form and improvisational; Bartok’s methodology seems to be

significantly more controlled and pre-planned. At times Bartok’s system almost seems forced, and the

resulting music, while highly organized, seems to be aesthetically lacking in some ways.

Scholarship related to both composers is extensive; however, in many instances, with both Bartok

and Stravinsky, theorists seem to be so focused on finding a satisfactory system that they force the music

into their methodology, and in the process make the composers seem like mechanical automatons who

were simply following a preconceived system rather than allowing the muse or their musical instincts to

guide their compositional process. If the music sounds good, perhaps that is a perfectly satisfactory
 Wakeman - 22

explanation of it – whether or not it fits within a specific author’s theory of how the octatonic collection

should work.

The octatonic collection has served as musical source material for many of Stravinsky and

Bartok’s most remarkable compositions. It is interesting to note that even after almost one hundred years

theoreticians are still trying to determine exactly what organizational methods and compositional

processes were employed in many of these works. Further study will hopefully continue to reveal new

insights into the performance and appreciation of the music of these two great masters.
 Wakeman - 23

Bibliography

Antokoletz, Elliott. The Music of Bela Bartok. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Berger, Arthur. “Problems of Pitch Organization in Stravinsky,” Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 2,

No.1 (Autumn – Winter, 1963): 11-42.

Cohn, Richard. “Bartok’s Octatonic Strategies: A Motivic Approach,” Journal of the American

Musicological Society,Vol. 44, No. 2 (Summer,1991): 262-300.

Cohn, Richard. “Inversional Symmetry and Transpositional Combination in Bartok,” Music Theory

Spectrum, Vol. 10, 10th Anniversary Issue (Spring, 1988): 19-42.

Forte, Allen. The Harmonic Organization of The Rite of Spring. New Haven: Yale University press,

1978.

Hill, Peter. Stravinsky: The Rite of Spring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Joseph, Charles. Stravinsky’s Ballets. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

Krumhansl, Carol L. and Schmuckler, Mark A. “The Petroushka Chord: A Perceptual Investigation,”

Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Winter, 1986): 153-184.

Straus, Joseph. “Stravinsky’s Tonal Axis,” Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Autumn, 1982):

261-290.

Taruskin, Richard. “Chez Petrouchka: Harmony and Tonality ‘chez’ Stravinsky,” 19th Century Music,

Vol. 10, No. 3, Special Issue: Resolutions I (Spring, 1987): 265-286.

 Wakeman - 24

Taruskin, Richard. “Why You Cannot Leave Bartok Out,” Studia Micologica Academiae Scientiarum

Hungaricae, T. 47, Fasc. 3 / 4, Bartok’s Orbit: The Context and Sphere of Influence of his work.

Proceedings of the International Conference held by the Bartok Archives, Budapest (22-24 March

2006). Part I (September 2006): 265-277.

VandenToorn, Pieter. Stravinsky and The Rite of Spring. Berkely: University of California Press, 1987.

VandenToorn, Pieter. The Music of Igor Stravinsky. Berkely: University of California Press, 1983.

VandenToorn, Pieter and Tymoczko, Demitri. “Stravinsky and the Octatonic: The Sounds of

Stravinsky,” Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring 2003): 167-202.

VandenToorn, Pieter and McGinnes, John. Stravinsky and the Russian Period. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2012.

Wachtel, Andrew, ed. Petrushka: Sources and Contexts. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press,

1998.

Walsh, Stephen. The Music of Stravinsky. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Wilson, Paul. The Music of Bela Bartok. New Haven: Yale University press, 1992.