In the debate between composers Igor Stravinsky and David Raskin published in the Film

Music Society Journal in 1946 and 1947, both men debated the aesthetic value of film music. I

argue that while Stravinsky’s claims offer some thought-provoking insight into his music and to

film music as a genre, Raskin’s stance was more plausible in that film music is deserving of

more critical attention, with an understanding that it requires a unique set of aesthetic criteria.

Stravinsky begins by arguing that film music really just exists to “feed the composer”,

even comparing the genre to a wallpaper and even perfume. He suggests that film music merely

serves the “wallpaper function” by having “the same relationship to the drama that restaurant

music has to the conversation at the individual restaurant table.” (FMS Part 1) While I find

Stravinsky’s comparison to be exaggerated, I think I understand what he is observing in terms of

the aesthetic and functional goal of music in films, albeit from the perspective of a traditional

composer whose works usually foreground the music. I believe that Stravinsky seems to be

uneasy about a musical genre where music is not necessarily at the top of the creative hierarchy,

which had to be concerned with and balance things like cinematics, spectacle, and dramaturgy

among other things.

This is another reason Stravinsky cites in refuting the critics’ comparison of his own

ballets and operas with film scores, adding that his stage works refer more to abstraction rather

than to realism in a similar vein to Picasso’s subjects in his still life, namely the guitar (FMS Part

2). While the issue Stravinsky raises seems to be contingent on representation, I think it connects

strongly to and continues to perpetuate Stravinsky’s Neoclassical polemics that we discussed in

class and in the first writing assignment, which he also references in both parts of his essay. I

find this reference in Stravinsky’s claim that music could not affect drama in any way, a fallacy

that he accused Wagnerian music drama of doing as he pointed out earlier in his 1936
Autobiography. Furthermore, Stravinsky’s discussion of select examples of his stage music,

namely Scene de Ballet, Danse Concertante, and Histoire du Soldat, approaches the musical and

dramatic material in a distanced manner. With Histoire du Soldat, for example, Stravinsky

describes the artistic value of the work as to be found in putting “music and drama together as

individual entities, put them together and let them alone, without compelling one to try to

"explain" and to react to the other.” (FMS Part 2) I agree with Stravinsky’s assessment of

Histoire du Soldat and of other Neoclassical stage works, with those works being convincing and

free synthesis of music, dramaturgy, and visuality. However, this again brings us back to

Stravinsky’s dismissive critique of film music. Not only does film music not foreground the

music in the way Stravinsky is more in commend of writing for the stage, but the genre also

comes into conflict with his Neoclassical and aesthetically objective values.

By contrast, Raskin’s essay provides a sharp yet insightful rebuttal of Stravinsky’s

objectivity and critique of film music. One statement by Raskin that stood out to me was how he

identified film music with historical forms of patronage for artists of all disciplines, may it be

courts, churches, or any wealthy individuals. “The whole struggle of the new generation of

American composers,” Raskin claims, “has been just this: that they should be able to live from

their work as composers. If film music makes this possible, so much the better.” (FMS Part 3)

The creative demands and financial opportunities of composing for film can offer the kinds of

stable income to composers in different stages of their career, which invites historical

comparison with composers in the past centuries who received patronage, like Haydn and

Beethoven, even if their social circumstances contrast with Raskin’s. Stravinsky, too, was a

beneficiary of the patronage system, supported by people like Diaghilev and the Ballet Russe,

Balanchine and the New York City Ballet, and Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge among others. This
perhaps makes Stravinsky’s assertion even more elitist, given the hypocrisy at present, as

someone who benefited from many patrons throughout his life, yet inadvertently denied other

composers that legitimate opportunity.

Regarding the artistic merit of film music, Raskin’s position speaks more to evaluating

the genre on its own terms, rather than through a heavily Classical perspective. He defends film

from Stravinsky’s accusation of film music as mere “wallpaper”, adding that even the musical

experiences of film can be transformative for the audience. Raskin finds it ridiculous to assert a

Neoclassical frame on film music’s impact on audience members, because “the function of film

music is an actuality which he does not need to be convinced of, since he experiences it.” (FMS

Part 3) This is another esthesic merit Raskin identified in film music, observing an artistic

function and importance that the genre has which proves its artistic independence. Though I of

course cannot speak to Stravinsky’s knowledge of film music of the time, nor should I risk the

fallacy of being s presentist, but I am also reminded of the actual process of composing film

music, which requires a certain amount of collaboration. I am thinking of the 1938 film

Alexander Nevsky, in which Prokofiev collaborated with Eisenstein almost as co-equals.

Prokofiev would compose music that Eisenstein would edit footage together that syncs and

complements the sonic activity of the Prokofiev score. While this example may be more of an

exception, it still goes to show that the creative process beyond film music is not necessarily all

hierarchical or zero-some as Stravinsky seems to suggest, and one that Raskin eloquently

disputes. Stravinsky’s claim seems to essentialize a lot of the nuances going into composing for

film.