INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. ‘The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the Copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations ‘and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. {n the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wil indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (¢.9. maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9° black and white Photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 o UMIUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Stravinsky's Pirebird: Genesis, Sources, and the Centrality of the 1919 Suite jertation submitted in partial tisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Musicology by Joni Lynn Steshko 2000UMI Number: 9976242 Copyright 2000 by Steshko, Joni Lynn All rights reserved. UMI UMI Microform9976242 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 ‘Ann Arbor, Mi 48106-1346© Copyright by Joni Lynn Steshko 2000The dissertation of Joni Lynn Steshko is approved. tchell Morris Pnalerlun 4: We Malcolm S. Cole, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2000 diDEDICATION This Dissertation is dedicated to those I hold nearest. to my heart: Diana, Patricia, and Kitty Steshko and Daniel Lewis. Without their love, help, support and encouragement, over many, many years, this dissertation would never have been. I also dedicate this dissertation in loving memory of my father, Nicholas Steshko. "May his Memory be Eternal." And finally, to Jon Anderson, who started it all. iiiDEDICATION © 1 ee ee eee ee ee eee LIST OF FIGURES... 1 /e ee ee ee eee ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS «2. ee eee ee eee NOTES ON RUSSIAN DATES AND TRANSLITERATIONS . VITA ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION... .. 1.6 Chapter T It. II. INTRODUCTION «2. eee eee eee HISTORY I: BIRTH, EARLY LIFE, CREATION OF FIREBIRD BALLET... ee ee ee we Life .. - Birth . oe The Stravinsky Family : - The Genesis of Firebird... . Diaghilev’s Enterprise Encounters Difficulties .. . aren Rehearsals: St. Petersburg and Par: Saisons Russe Paris Program Subsequent Performances: Paris 1911, London Premiere, Red Cross Gala .’. Red Cross Gala... ..... HISTORY II: SUITES AND TRANSCRIPTIONS . 1910 Suite we eee see 1912 Be: re and 1914-15 Finale . . 1919 Suite ....... cee 1919 Suite: Subsequent Performances 1945 Suite 2... ee ee eee iv iii vii viii xii xiiiIv. 1945 Suite Performances . . oe Transcriptions: Violin and Piano Canon on a Russian Popular Tune . Summer Moon... .- - eee ee SOURCES»... ee ee ee ee ee Summary of Archives... . Manuscript Catalogues Manuscript Ballet Sk tches oe uscript Ballet Sco! 1 Piano Reductio! 1910 Ballet Full Orchestra Manuscript . Manuscript /Printed Ballet: Orchestra Parts... . . Printed Ballet Piano Reduction - Printed Ballet Orchestra Score: Proofs” Printed Ballet Orch 1910 Suite - Autogri 1910 Suite - Manuscript... . . 1910 Suite Full score - Printed : Printed 1910 Suite Orchestra Part: 1912 Berceuse Manuscript .... 1912 Berceuse Printed Full Orchestra Score... . 5.010 Berceuse/Finale Autograph Sketche: 1914-15 Finale Manuscript . . . . 1919 Manuscript Sketches ... . 1919 Manuscript... . 0: Berceuse Transition Sketch. . : 1919 Printed Scores... .... 1919 Parts... . eee Variation for Piano: Autograph Ske! 1945 Suite Autograph Manuscripts 1945 Autograph Manuscript Sketch 1945 Reinschrift ....... 1945 Printed Scores... .. . Transcriptions: Autograph Manusc: and Publisher’s Proofs Ronde... eee ee Berceuse . 1. eee Scherzo... .... Concert Introduction : Piano Rolls. .... Miscellaneous Sources Miscellaneous Printed Scor (First Editions) .. 1919 Suite: Other Editions . . : i a s te ‘ipti 106 107 110 112 120 120 122 129 144 150 155 160 163 167 170 173 174 174 176 177 182 185 186 189 192 201 203 207 207 207 210 210 211 213 213 214 215 216 218 221 222 224ve THE EVOLUTION OF STRAVINSKY’S ATTITUDE TOWARD FIREBIRD... .......- Description of Suites. ....... VI. CONCLUSIONS 2. 6 ee eee ee eee SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY... .. 2... 6s wiLIST OF FIGURES Table of Library Siglia.. . Sources: Summary by Category Source Chart ...... Ballet and Suite Movements vii 121 140 143 256ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Many thanks to the various archives and institutions who granted me access to their materials, including: the Bibliothéque Nationale de France, Paris; the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; the Conservatoire de Musique, Geneva, Switzerland; Schott Publishers, Mainz; the Bibliothéque Musicale de la Ville de Genave; the University of California, Berkeley Music Library; and the Orchestra de la Suisse Romande, Geneva. Special thanks to the Paul Sacher Stiftung and its staff for their invaluable help and support. Financial assistance was provided by the Fulbright Foundation, the International Federation of University Women, and the Paul Sacher Stiftung. The following individuals contributed matters both musical and musicological: Daniel Lewis, Herbert Schneider, Charles M. Joseph, Yuri Kholopov, Albi Rosenthal, Viktor Varuntz, Valerii Smirnov, and Rex Lawson. Thanks are also due to Mary Crawford and Kate Goodyear viiiwho helped me manoeuver through the maze of paperwork that is a Ph.D. Dr. Jon Robertson deserves credit for steering me away from a dissertation on Mahler when, after listening to me rant about the state of Firebird editions and question why no one had made a 1919 suite critical edition, he uttered the immortal words, “Well, why don’t you do it?” And so a dissertation was born. Permission to reproduce music examples was granted by the following publishers: Eulenburg/Schott for the 1996 edition of the complete ballet (on pp. 268, 270-71, 274- 275, 282-83, 289, 293, 298-99, 302, 305, 308, 310, 316, and 318-19); Edwin P. Kalmus for the reprint of the Jurgenson 1910 suite (p. 314); J. & W. Chester for the 1919 suite (pp. 269, 272-73, 276-77, 284-85, 290, 294, 300, 303, 306- 7, 309, 311, 317, 320-21, 328, 329, 330, 332, 336-37); Eulenburg/Schott for the 1945 suite (pp. 278-79, 286-87, 291, 295-96, 301, 311), and Edwin F Kalmus for the 1989 edition of the 1919 suite (p. 333). Finally, thanks to Jon Anderson, who introduced me to the piece for the first time on a magical night I will remember always, and especially to my mom, Diana Steshko, whe did a yeoman’s job proofreading innumerable drafts and even cleaned up the mess I made afterwards. ixNOTES ON RUSSIAN DATES AND TRANSLITERATIONS All dates for events which took place in Russia previous to 1 February 1918 are given according to the Julian or “Old Style” calendar. Nineteenth-century dates are thus twelve days behind those of the Gregorian ("New Style") calendar until 29 February 1900, after which they are thirteen days behind (1900 being a leap year in the Julian but not Gregorian calendar). Dates for events which took place outside of Russia previous to 1 February 1918 are given according to the Western Gregorian scheme. In some cases where confusion is unavoidable, dates are given in both "Old Style* ("o.s.") and "New Style” ("n.s."), or separated by a slash: "7/20 November." Transliteration from the Cyrillic alphabet for themost part follows the scheme used by the Library of Congress rather than the “industry standard” established in the New Grove Dictionary. While the New Grove system w: sufficient during its day, our current, computerized age demands an exactitude of spelling heretofore unprecedented. While Boris IArustovskii may be found under “Jarustovsky" or "Yarustovsky" in some systems, most computerized library catalogues using Library of Congress will only produce results under “IArustovskii.* I have departed from the system only in the case of names which are firmly established in the public consciousness: thus “Stravinsky” not “Stravinskii," and so forth. Also, the character ‘r" in genitive case endings transliterated as "v" rather than "g” according to Pronunciation. Thus “-oro* is rendered “-ovo" not "-ogo." xiVITA March 5, 1958 Born, Burbank, California 1975-1977 Music Major University of California, Santa Barbara 1977-1980 B.A., Guitar Performance University of California, Los Angeles 1980-1985 M.M., Conducting Department of Music California State University, Fullerton 1984-1985 Teaching Assistant Department of Music University of California, Los Angeles 1985-1986 Teaching Associate Department of Music University of California, Los Angeles 1990 International Federation of University Women Doctoral Dissertation Research Award 1991-1992 Fulbright Fellowship for Dissertation Research in Basel, Switzerland 1993 Paul Sacher Foundation, Basel, Switzerland, Research Stipend 1992-1995 M.M., Conducting University of Southern California PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Steshko, Joni Lynn. L’Oiseau de Feu (1910). Critical Edition. Edited by Herbert Schneider. London: Eulenburg, c1996. Music Review. Notes 54/4 (June 1998): 997-1002. xiiABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Stravinsky’s Firebird: Genesis, Sources, and the Centrality of the 1919 suite by Joni Lynn Steshko Doctor of Philosophy in Musicology University of California, Los Angeles, 2000 Professor Malcolm S. Cole, Chair Igor Stravinsky's Firebird ballet and three Firebird suites (1910, 1919, and 1945) have endured a turbulent history, from the tumultuous days of the ballet’s creation and premiere in 1910, through the legal battles between Stravinsky and his publishers, and culminating in the composer’s own ambivalence towards the work he disparagingly referred to as “that audience lollipop." It ie universally accepted that a composer of Stravinsky’s stature is deserving of a critical edition of his collected works, and that currently his published works are in a deplorable state, particularly the 1919 Firebird suite. To say that a critical edition of the Firebird suite is long overdue is an understatement. The difficulty xiiiof such an endeavor is compounded by the abundance of sources, both manuscript and printed, which are housed in numerous institutions throughout the world, from Basel to Paris to New York. Tracking down the various sources, travelling to view them, and collecting them on microfilm requires an immense outpouring of time and resources. Finally, the gathered data must be sifted through, then compiled into a score, with hundreds of decisions to be made at every turn. This dissertation reflects the preliminary stage of a project, the end result of which will be the compilation of a scholarly, critical edition of the 1919 Firebird suite. The first two chapters encompass a detailed overview of the history of the ballet and the various suites, transcriptions, etc. The main body of the text is a source study, describing all the known source materials, their histori and present locations (if known). An ancillary chapter presents evidence of Stravinsky’s attitude toward the Firebird works, and how his attitude evolved over time. This evolution in attitude is reflected in writings by Stravinsky and his colleagues as well as in the reorchestrations of the suites themselves. xivCHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Igor Stravinsky’s Firebird ballet and three Firebird suites (1910, 1919, and 1945) have endured a turbulent history, from the tumult of the ballet’s creation and premiere in 1910, through the legal battles between Stravinsky and his publishers, and culminating in the composer’s own ambivalence towards “that audience lollipop."* Much to his dismay, and to his eternal annoyance, Firebird has remained Stravinsky’s most popular and enduring work. Yet even Robert Craft, Stravinsky’s right-hand man, has dubbed the Firebird as “the music I loved most."? Even in Russi + audiences and performers displayed an affinity for Firebird: when Stravinsky made his much- ‘Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Retrospectives and Conclusions (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), 42. Robert Craft, Pr int Perspectives. Critical Writings (New York: Al id A. Knopf, 1984), 236.heralded journey back to Russia, the composer and his entourage attended a performance of Petrushka, Orpheus, and the Firebird by the Leningrad Malii Opera Theatre ballet company, held at the Kremlin Palace of Congress: According to Craft, the music and staging of the three ballets were at times hardly recognizable, but even under such conditions, the Firebird was “the best-performed and the best-received" of the three.’ No less a personage than Robert Craft decries the absence of a critical edition of Stravinsky’s collected works‘ and mourns the deplorable state of Stravinsky's published works, particularly the Firebird suite: Stravinsky’s published music is in an unspeakable condition. The example that comes to mind is the 1919 Firebird, with its more than three hundred errors; but this is not atypical, since every Stravinsky score has quantities of them.® The published Firebird scores were plagued by errors almost from their inception. The published literature on Stravinsky is replete with references by Stravinsky, his collaborators, particularly Robert Craft, and his publishers, in which they bemoan the vexatious errors. As early as 1913, while preparing the 1910 Firebird suite for *Eric Walter White, Stravinsky, the Composer and his Works, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), 147. Also present on this occasion was Nikita Khrushchev. 224. ‘Craft, Present Perspectivi ‘Ibid., 223.publication, Stravinsky’s publisher, Piotr Jurgenson, remarks: Recently I sent you a copy of some pages of the Firebird sco: While proofreading the parts, we noticed an inconsistency, either in the position of the piano and celeste parts (one on top of the other, then the other way around) or in the designation of these parts. How shall we correct it? Stravinsky himself, in a letter to Willy Strecker of schott comments: Last year in the Augusteo in Rome, the parts of the 1919 version were in such Poor condition and so full of mistakes that (conductor) Paul Rletzk:. who happened to be there before m arriva. had the kindness to devote an entire rehearsal to correcting the parts.’ In 1923, Stravinsky was to conduct the Firebird in Biarritz and Antwerp, so he wrote to Otto Kling of Chester, the publisher of the 1919 suite, requesting the orchestra score and a set of parts." After the performances, Stravinsky states in a letter to Henry Kling’: ‘Unfortunately, the Firebird Suite, immensely successful in Antwerp under my direction on January 7, is full of errors. It is my duty ‘Letter of 23 April 1913. Igor Stravinsky, Stravinsky Selected Correspondence, 3 vols. ed. Robert Craft (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982) 11:224 (hereafter, SSC). Craft erroneously assumes the score in preparation w ballet, though th: published in 1911. the "Letter of @ March 1952 in Craft, Present Perspectives, 223. “Letter of 21 November 1923, SSC 11:229. *son of Otto Kling, who had recently died, ibid., 11:229.to tell you so." The 1945 suite is likewise full of errors: Jascha Horenstein, who conducted the premiere of a staged version of the 1945 suite with décor by Chagall and choreography by Adolph Bolm," remarked to Stravinsky in a telegram after the premiere: “Orchestra parts simply horrible. Manuscripts done by nonprofessional copyists. Worse than anything ever experienced." This prompted Stravinsky to write to Leeds, the publisher of the 1945 suite, deploring the state of the orchestra parts, particularly in light of the fact that he had scheduled twelve performances of the new suite in his forthcoming concert tour and had also made arrangements to record the work for Columb. The reasons for the errors in the scores are numerous. Craft attribut. them to, among other things, the Russian Revolution, because it deprived Stravinsky of copyright protection and exposed his music to legalized piracy... Despite his American citizenship and the new US-USSR copyright agreement, the abuse continues; in their original versions, all of his pre-1931 compositions are permanently in the public domain. “Letter of 30 November 1923, ibid., 11:229. 24 October 1945. "8sc 11:255. “Letter of 27 October 1945, ibid., I1:255. “craft, Present Perspectives, 223.Regarding the Revolution, Stravinsky himself remarked The [Firebird} ballet was the property of Jurgenson but is no longer, thanks to the altered concept of private and intellectual property espoused by the new Russian order, of which I am a victim, as durger 7s The mistakes in the 1919 suite were partly a result of Poor editing, although evidence exists to show that Stravinsky received proofs of the Chester edition of the 1919 suite. The director of the Geneva branch of Chester, Charles Desbaillets, wrote to Stravinsky: We are sending you the proofs of the full score of the new Firebird Suite; we would be grateful if you would return them to us with your corrections as soon as possible. M. Pychenov has just returned the parts, which he corrected from the parts that M. Ansermet delivered to us. That Stravinsky did not actually correct the proofs himself is evident from a series of letters between the composer and Ernest Ansermet.'’ Though Stravinsky received the Proofs from Chester in July, it was October before Ansermet corrected them. Why it was Ansermet and not Stravinsky who corrected the proofs is not documented, though it may simply be that Ansermet still had the manuscript score in his possession. Ansermet’s involvement in the process may “Letter of 14 August 1920, SSC, I1:228. “Letter of 28 July 1920, ssc, 11:228. “Letter of 22 September 1920 from Stravinsky to Ansermet and postcards from Ansermet to Stravinsky on 1 and 13 October 1920. Claude Tappolet, Correspondance Ansermet- Igor Strawinsky (1914-1967) (Geneva: Georg Editeur S.A., 1990), 1:170-72.account for many of the mistakes, since, despite his familiarity with the work as a conductor, he could not possibly view the proofs with the same eye as the composer himself would. Craft attributes errors in the 1945 suite to the fact that Stravinsky used the inaccurate published 1919 suite as the basis for the 1945 version. Stravinsky, it seems, Preparing the suite in April 1945, was “working from the pirated Kalmus edition of the 1919 score for most of the music, and for the reorchestrated added sections using his copy of the complete ballet." ‘The copyist for the 1945 suite also used the 1919 score for preparing the Leeds edition. Stravinsky, in a letter to Leeds, blames the arduous work of correcting the proofs on the circumstance that the Leeds copyist had used two different orchestra scores, one of which was revised and corrected by me, the other (or others) was the uncorrected and unrevised Kalmus (pirated) score. The quantity of mistakes was too numerous to fit all I had to say in the margins, and I decided to correct everything myself. Eugene Weintraub of Leeds accounted for the errors in a letter to Bruno Zirato, Stravinsky’s concert agent, after “vera Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Stravinsky in Pictures and Documents (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 378. Why he did not use the 1919 manuscript is simple: he no longer had it, having given it to none other than Coco Chanel around 1922 (see Chapter IV, Sources). “Letter of 16 May 1946, SSC I1:255.the premiere of 1945. According to Weintraub, a 1l4-page score [of the 1945 suite) arrived here Saturday at 8:00 p.m. All good copyiste were either busy or refused to work on Sunday. The question became this: Should I deliver bad parts or have the Ballet Theater cancel their proposed premiere? . . . Although the Ballet [Theater] have already given three performances with this material . . . we are going to great expense to copy a new set of parts.” Until recently, the 1919 suite, the most frequently performed of the three suites, was available only in the original Chester and Kalmus editions. Orchestras and conductors have been forced to edit and correct the scores and parts, a time consuming and somewhat arbitrary process. Some errors can be readily corrected, i.e., adding missing rehearsal numbers, key or time signatures, correcting wrong notes, etc. To avoid costly delays in rehearsal, the conductor must spend countless hours with the score and parts, occasionally referring to the 1945 suite and original ballet for guidance. Needless to say, the process results in an arbitrary and subjective reading, as each conductor will arrive at his or her own conclusions. To complicate matters further, Stravinsky, in many instances, altered the music in the 1919 suite to the point where comparisons between ballet and suite cannot be made. Likewise, the 1945 suite ws again rewritten, making direct comparisons impossible, nor can one assume that the "Letter of 30 October 1945, SSC I1:255.alterations Stravinsky made in 1945 should in all cases be applied retroactively to the 1919 suite, written twenty-six years earlier, Two major attempts to remedy the Firebird problem have been undertaken recently. One was Jonathan Sternberg’s article in the Journal of the Conductors’ Guild, which consisted of a lengthy list of corrections.” In response to the article, many conductors suggested further corrections, prompting a second lengthy list of corrections.” ‘Though these errata lists are a great aid to conductors, they cannot replace a scholarly, authoritative, critical edition compiled through a thorough examination of original source material. Sternberg did not consult a single manuscript, relying on printed scores of the complete ballet and the 1945 suite, as well as his own “good judgement."”? The process of “correcting” a score of the 1919 suite based on the “Scores and Parts" articles is a tedious, labor-intensive project, and one is never sure if the corrections are legitimately Stravinsky’s or only Sternberg’s opinion. Moreover, if one actually examin the manuscripts, one finds many errors which can only be Sternberg, "Scores and Parts,” Journal of Guild 2, no. 3 (Summer 1981): 118-31. Jonathan Sternberg, "Scores and Parts," Journal of the Conductors’ Guild 4, no. 1 (Winter 1983): 20-38. 2 Scores and Parts," (1981): 118.detected by comparison with the original. A potentially more helpful development in the Firebird edition quandary was the appearance in 1985 of a new Kalmus "edition," "edited" by Clark McAlister." This new edition is created from the same old Kalmus plates previous editions, but with numerous corrections. In the Introduction to the score, McAlister lista his authority for his corrections the orchestra parts provided by Clinton Niewig, principal librarian of the Philadelphia Orchestra, in addition to the scores of the ballet and 1910 suite.” For passages which contained “modified” material, the editor has relied on "the guidance of the immediate musical context for the resolution of any difficulties,"* or, in other words, his own judgement. Like the Sternberg corrections, the 1985 Kalmus is not a scholarly, authoritative score: McAlister failed to consult a single manuscript. Furthermore, a quick glance through the score reveals that some incorrect notes still have not been rectified, the indications for string mutes in the Introduction remain unclear, dynamics are inconsistently “Igor Stravinsky, Firebird Suite, ed. Clark McAlister (Miami: Kalmus, 1985 Quotations mine. This edition, which also proved faulty, was revised and reprinted in 1989. **Italics mine. The word “manuscript” does not appear anywhere in his introduction to the edition. Niewig calls the 1910 suite the 1911 suite. “Firebird, 1985, unnumbered frontis page.applied, etc. Though an improvement over the original Kalmus edition, the revised 1985 score falls far short of perfection. Kalmus quickly recognized that it had missed the mark, and, in 1989, issued yet another revised version. The improvements were derived from comparison with the facsimile edition of the 1910 pallet,” and further discussion with Philadelphia Orchestra staff. Oddly enough, McAlister declares that "access to the manuscript score [of the 1919 suite] would likely resolve certain remaining ambiguities in the music. . ." yet inexplicably he does not consult the manuscript, such as it is, despite its being available on microfilm for less than ten dollars from the Bibliothéque Nationale in Parist Neither Sternberg nor the Kalmus editors consulted the 1919 manuscript, an omission which limites the usefulness of their efforts. Careful study of the manuscript is quite illuminating. It reveals that many of the mistakes in the printed versions arose through Stravinsky: own errors, while others are clearly the fault of the editors and Printers. Most significant, however, are the instances in which notes or entire phrases have been omitted in the printing process, and thus have never before been published. “Igor Stravinsky, L’Oiseau de Feu. Fac-similé du manuscrit Saint-Pétersbourg, 1909-1910, ed. Louis Cyr, Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger and Pierre Wissmer (Geneva: Editions Minkoff, 1985). 10To say that critical editions of the Firebird ballet and suite: particularly the 1919 suite, are long overdue is an understatement. The difficulty of such an endeavor is compounded by the abundance of sources, both manuscript and printed, which are housed in numerous institutions throughout the world, from Basel to Paris to New York. Tracking down the various sources, travelling to view them and collecting them on microfilm, requires a ma: ive commitment of time and resources, not to mention sifting through the data, compiling a score, and making decisions when the data conflicts. As Stravinsky’s most enduring and popular work, the 1919 suite is deserving of an accurate, scholarly, and intelligently prepared edition. Orchestras and conductors around the world would welcome error-free performance materials. Though in the minds of many scholars and performers, the 1945 suite represents Stravinsky's final wishes and is thus the version which should be performed exclusively, it has failed to supplant the 1919 version in the hearts of concert audiences. The reasons why the 1945 version has not superseded the 1919 suite are varied--perhaps it is the added length of the inserted movements or the orchestral effects which are more in keeping with Stravinsky’s later works. In comparison, the 1919 suite is beautifully balanced and Proportioned in terms of length--it features the most 11beautiful and exciting music from the ballet in a concise and compact form. The orchestration ie closely allied in spirit to the ballet, though tighter in its reduced instrumentation. Of all the Firebird works, it is the most taut and dramatically effective. It has earned a well deserved place of honor in the orchestral literature, a place it is not likely to relinquish. This dissertation reflects the preliminary stage of a Project the end result of which will be the compilation of a scholarly, critical edition of the 1919 Firebird suite. The first two chapters encompass a detailed overview of the history of the ballet and the various suites, transcriptions, etc. The main body of the text is a source study, describing all the known source materials, their histories and present locations (if known). An ancillary chapter presents evidence of Stravinsky's attitude toward the Firebird works, and how his attitude evolved over time. This evolution in attitude is reflected in writings by Stravinsky and his colleagues as well as in the reorchestrations of the suites themselves. 12CHAPTER II HISTORY I: BIRTH, EARLY LIFE, CREATION OF FIREBIRD BALLET LIFE Though numerous biographies of Igor Stravinsky have been published, Robert Craft, writing in 1982, maintained that a truly comprehensive biography was still “far from being a possibility" because "crucial information about Stravinsky’s formative years through the period of Firebird is lacking."? Granted, the published documentary evidence available in the centenary year was limited: some items were not comprehensive enough to be useful, while othera were simply inaccessible. For example, the biography of Stravinsky’s father,’ though it contains several letters from Stravinsky to his parents, treats the young composer in a peripheral manner. Much of the published documentary ‘Robert Craft, “Stravinsky, a Centenary View," Present Perspectives, 227. *Larisa Mikhailovna Kutateladze and Abram Gozenpud, eds., F. I. Stravinskii: Stat’i, pis’ma, vospominaniia (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1972). 13evidence is available only in Russian editions,’ and these materials are rare in North America or Western Europe. Only Richard Taruskin’s recently published opus on the period through Mavra comes anywhere near to what one could call “comprehensive.** Yet even in Taruskin’s voluminous *See for example: Galina Sergeevna Arfeevskaia and Irina IAkovlevna Vershinina, I. F. Stravinskii: Stat'i Vospominaniia [I. F. Stravinsky: Essays and Memoirs) (Moscow: Sovietskii Kompositor, 1985); Valerii V. Smirnov, Tvorcheskoe formirovanie I. F. Stravinskovo (Creative Formative Years of I. F. Stravinsky) (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1970); and Kseniia IUr’evna Stravinskaia, OI. F. Stravinskom i evo blizkikh [About I. F. Stré vinsky and his Family) (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1978). Niklau: Réthlin’s, “Strawinskys juristiche Ausbildung" in Quellenstudien I, Band 2, 1991, published by the Paul Sacher stiftung, though in the more accessible German language, suffers a similar fate: the Stiftung-published volume received only limited circulation. ‘Richard Taruskin, Stravinsky and The Russian Traditions. A Biography of the Works Through Mavra, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Pres: 1995) One drawback to Taruskin’s otherwise excellent book arises from the circumstance of the lengthy arch and Publication process. As a result, some materials which came to light after research completed are not included. the book lacks reference to many 1990’s publication: ich as the Réthlin article mentioned above or that of Svetlana Savenko ["L’Oiseau de Feu--zur Geschichte der ersten Fassung," Mitteilungen der Paul Sacher Stiftung 8 (March 1995): 31-35] or Maureen Carr [*Le Carillon f6érique, une clef disparue de L’Oiseau de Feu de Stravinsky," 32 Analyse Musicale (July 1993): 40-47), nor does it include reference (even in the bibliography) to the 1985 facsimile edition of the complete Firebird ballet score with its copious and useful notes by Louis Cyr, Jean- Jacques Eigeldinger, and Pierre Wissmer. Moreover. Taruskin consulted the Stravinsky Archive materi: United States before their acquisition by the Sacher Stiftung and subsequent removal to Basel. Thus, later Stiftung acquisitions, such as the mate: Craft Collection (see Chapter IV, Sources), were not consulted. in the Mutome, some materials chronicling Stravinsky’s early life are omitted, while the original sources remain hopelessly inaccessible. For example, Taruskin describes the diary kept by Stravinsky’s father, owned at the time Taruskin conducted his research by Alexandr IAkovlev, the widower of Stravinsky’s niece, Kseniia.’ Taruskin appears not to have seen the actual diary, referring the reader to an article by IAkovlev.‘ Robert Craft did examine the diary on his return visit to Russia in 1981,’ but provides only a brief yet tantalizing description of the incident (in any case, Craft, no Russianist, could not read the diary): +s. I arrive at the starting place on the Stravinsky trail, the apartment of A{lexander] A. Yacovlev. Here is the huge diary kept by I.s.‘s father until the last months of his life, during which his wife made the final entries for him. In this immaculate record, in which every event of every day is entered in detail, including the expenditure of each kopeck tabulated in the right column, the birth of Igor is framed in red ink, and as carefully as if he had done it himself. The book is a history of Igor’s first twenty years, as well as evidence of the survival of the habits of the father in the son.* “Taruskin, Russian Traditions, 1:99n. ‘Alexander IAkovlev, "Iz detskikh i iunosheskikh let: utochneniia k biografi,” Muzykal’naia akademiia 4 (1992): 112-14, quoted in Taruskin, Russian Traditions, gn. A fragment of one page is reproduced in K. IU. Stravinekai OI. F. Stravinskom, 139, showing the entry for Igor’s birth. "Craft, Present P ectives, 408. “Craft, Pre nt Perspectives, 408-9. 1sBIRTH Thanks largely to Féodor Stravinsky’s records, Igor Stravinsky’s birth is well-documented. The composer-to-be was born on 5 June 1882 at Khudyntsev dacha, 137 Shveitsarskaia Ulitsa,’ in the seaside town of Oranienbaum (now Lomonosov).*° As an adult, Stravinsky did not revisit his birthplace until his trip to Soviet Russia in 1962. THE STRAVINSKY FAMILY Igor Stravinsky was born into a literate and musical home." His father, the famous basso, Féodor Ignatievich Stravinsky, was a singer at the Imperial Opera House. Igor studied piano with various local teachers, but quickly turned to composition, first improvising at the piano, then transcribing other composers’ works. Though Stravinsky admired both Glazunov and Rimsky-Korsakov, it was Glazunov whom he first approached, around 1897, with a piano transcription of a Glazunov string quartet. Acting ‘aptly named, Shve “Swiss Street.” rskaia ulit. is Russian for "Andrei Efimovitch Martynov and Dominique Fernandez, Saint-Pétersbourg (Editions Critérion, Bibliothaque Nationale de Russie, 1994) reproduces Martynov’s lithographs of the Oranienbaum area sixty years before Stravinsky’s birth, while Stravinskaia’s book shows Féodor’s drawing of the dacha in which Igor was born (p. 25). “For a detailed examination of his family history see Taruskin, Russian Traditions, or Kutateladze and Gozenpud, F. I. Stravinskii. 16