The Rite of Spring and the Riot Which Did or Did not Occur

The premiere of The Rite of Spring occurred on the night of May 29, 1913 in Paris, France. Igor Stravinsky, the composer of the work, was seated in the packed audience, Pierre Monteux led the charge as the conductor, choreographer Vaslav Nijinsky was backstage, and the performance commenced. Then, in the heat of the crowd, a full scale, all out riot ravaged the auditorium like nothing that has ever been seen before! Well, there is plenty skepticism to be had with that last detail, but according to John Orlando Northcutt, the author of this Los Angeles Times article, which is located in the ProQuest Historical Newspaper database, that is supposedly what transpired at the premiere. The thing is that this sentiment is not unique and the idea of a riot completely overtaking the premiere of The Rite of Spring seems to be the prevailing narrative. Although the premiere of The Rite of Spring was different in many ways, the idea of a riot taking place deserves to be question.

The article was published on December 4, 1951, and the premise of Northcutt’s discussion stems from a Los Angeles Philharmonic performance of The Rite of Spring which was scheduled for December 13–14. The article in essence is a promotional piece. Northcutt in turn details what happened at the premiere stating that “vocal protests” and “shouts that floated down the airwaves to the lower floors” swelled into “a full scale, all out-riot.” Additionally, Northcutt states that “the audience began belaboring each other with fists and canes,” that an item which was “not tightly anchored to the floor was torn up and flung at the conductor and stage,” and that “Diaghilev ordered the lights out and Stravinsky escaped through a backstage window.” There is a lot to unpack here and a lot more which could be unpacked from Northcutt’s article as well, but I want to focus in on the narrative painted by Northcutt.

Northcutt mentioned there where shouts and vocal protests which resulted in the all-out riot. After reviewing many first-hand accounts and documents of what happened compiled Thomas Forrest Kelly’s book First Nights, it can be heavily inferred that there where shouts and vocal protests which disrupted the premiere. Gustave Linor, a reviewer present at the premiere, stated “This performance almost degenerated into a rowdy debate.” Lise Léon Blum saw “a hall divided by two contrary currents.” Henri Quittard noted “the audience could not restrain its laughter.” Pierre Monteux years after the premiere said “Well, on hearing this near riot behind me I decided to keep the orchestra together at any cost.” Lastly, John Gould Fletcher in May of 1913 stated that “half the audience was yelling bravo,” “the other half were hooting,” and that “There was nearly a fight.”

There are many more accounts listed in Kelly’s book of what transpired, but from what I gathered, there was a theatre divided, one side cheering and the other side protesting. Why that may be is another matter of discussion regarding the music, scenery, and choreography of the work and the societal sentiments held at the time. While a theatre divided seems like a sure-fire sign of trouble, and Monteux noted a riot was behind him, the prevailing narrative seems to be that there was a heated debate of emotions, less so of physical fighting. If an auditorium scale brawl did occur, there is a cause to believe that brawl would have been better documented or more prominently recorded in the first-hand accounts.

This line of reasoning leads me to think Northcutt’s additional comments and implemented quotes are hyperbolic or mis inserted. In 1962, Stravinsky noted “Diaghilev flickering the house lights,” but him doing so was in an effort to calm the audience and not in an attempt to allow Stravinsky an opportunity to escape. Monteux did note that Stravinsky “disappeared through a window backstage, to wander disconsolately along the streets of Paris,” but this to me seems to be because Stravinsky wanted to leave a heated auditorium opposing his work to get some fresh air, not to escape from a ravaging crowd look for his head. Lastly, Carl Van Vechten in 1916 stated “We warred over art,” but he is referencing an audience at war with boos and cheers. At a sporting event, there may be a scuffle between some rivaling fans, but it is unfair to attribute their actions to the whole audience in attendance and label the event a riot, so although scuffles may be noted at the premiere, there is still a larger picture to be noted.

So after all of this, why did Northcutt, in alinement with others, label the premiere of The Rite of Spring as a riot? There is a cause and a case to be made over why he did, however, the statements linked to Northcutt in the article are hyperbolized in many ways. Perhaps by creating controversy around the premiere, Northcutt is better to advertise (this article at its base is an advertisement) the Los Angeles Philharmonic concert which was set to take place in a week in a half? Maybe it is because human nature is prone to finding controversy and scandal interesting? Where did this idea of a riot first arise in mainstream culture? How does the legacy of the riot affect the legacy of The Rite of Spring? Does the work benefit from this controversy surrounding it? Do Nijinsky, Diaghilev, or Stravinsky benefit from this controversy? Are the primary sources hyperbolizing or understating what actually occurred? Does misinterpreted, improper diction play a role? Although we will never truly know what happened at the premiere, we can do our best to infer what happened from the sources we have, and perhaps that is where the fun begins.