In ”100 years ago today, ‘The Rite of Spring’ incited a riot in a Paris theater” by Amar Toor, he seems to agree and believe that a riot did indeed occur 100 years ago when the Rite of Spring premiered. He talks about how many of the Parisians in the crowd that watched the play started to throw vegetables on the stage and the crowd got so loud that even the dancers couldn’t hear the music. He does say that perhaps the story was exaggerated over time, but a riot did indeed occur after the release of the ballet. Toor talks about how the riot was between two factions in the crowd, one that liked “The pretty and tamed” and the other that liked “new exciting things”. He goes to explain that this was a riot between traditionalists vs modernity, and people that supported this novel form or ballets and the ones that didn’t.

In “Did Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring incite a riot at its premiere?” the author explains that the riot is must another classical music myth that far too many believe in. He sources Tamara Levitz, “Racism at The Rite” in The Rite of Spring at 100 (Indiana University Press, 2013), 146-78 and Ian Hewett, “The riot at the Rite: the premiere of The Rite of Spring” for the British Library. The author explains that much of the ”riot” are sourced from people that had a limited understanding of the ballet and from people that wanted to lash out because they didn’t support the new type of ballet. Furthermore that day there was another play at the theater that happened right after the release of ” The Rite Of Spring”, which wouldn’t be possible if the crowd had became violet and throw vegetables on to the stage. The author explains that the riot was a narrative that was exaggerated and carried on from article to article about the ballet. it was simply a over the top story about a play that many were confused about. In addition the story became popular because it was essentially a huge game of telephone. People that heard the story wanted to believe it because it was exciting, a ballet that caused a riot in one of the largest booming metropolises during this time period.

Personally I think i would have enjoyed it quite a lot. I loge horror modern horror and thriller movies, snd “The Rite of Spring” was essentially the horror film of ballets during this time. The acting and dancing of the dancers would have probably mesmerized me. The music also fit perfect with the dancing, and fit the scenario perfectly. So yes i probably would have loved the ballet.

In the article ”100 years ago today, ‘The Rite of Spring’ incited a riot in a Paris theater” the author is stating that the riot did happened and that it was seen as one of the most important and violent riots of the time. “Stravinsky’s grand debut ended in mayhem and chaos.” the author explains that mostly all of this performance was disastrous and everyone was being violent. The author is also explaining how the audience didn’t like the performance at all “with a performance at the same theater where it debuted to boos and violence. ” meaning that the performance was full of hate and violence and that’s why the riot started.

In the article “Not Another Music History Cliché” the author is talking about how “the author stated that “the riot never happened ” meaning that the author thinks that this was mostly a myth and a racist act that was happening while the opera was being played for example the author states, ”as the title of Levitz’s essay indicates, these practices were very racist. Thus some in the audience—notably the aristocrats—responded in the way they thought they were supposed to: by laughing.” this show us how it was mostly about an argument of people being racist and fighting each other. It was also perceived as a myth in the text states, “Yet the myth doesn’t just claim that a riot occurred—it asserts that Stravinsky’s music caused the riot.” this evidence show us that the author interprets this problem as a myth and that Stravinsky helped with this riot in order to happen.  

If I were the audience in 1913 I think I would have been surprised and kinda confused. Because it’s a performance that it supposed to give a scary feeling, and I think I would have been confused because I Wouldn’t have thought that something like that could have been portrayed in a dance.

In the article “100 years ago today, ‘The Rite of Spring incited a riot in a Paris theater” by Amar Toor, Toor believes that the ballet’s performance was meant to cause chaos. The way he describes it is that Stravinsky knew what he was doing putting in pitches that would sound violent and frenetic. The type of opera that was going to be performed on the night of May 29th, 1913 was not what anyone expected. This was something completely new compared to Stravinsky’s old work. But this opera itself turned into a nightmare when the ballerinas didn’t know what they were doing. The high-pitched bassoons and the pounding percussion caused even more issues. With the loud pitches, the ballerinas weren’t able to hear and follow the orchestra, leading the choreographer Vaslav Nijinsky to shout commands from backstage. This caused anger and the crowd didn’t know who to blame. Was Stravinsky to blame because of the musical choice? or was Nijinsky to blame for creating a violent choreography? No one knew how to feel, but at the time the anger was so strong they chose to go on a riot to express how unhappy they were for an opera show to be like this.

In the article “Did Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring incite a riot at its premiere?” by Linda Shaver-Gleason, the author argues that the famous riot never happened. According to Linda the only evidence that we have from the “riot” came from the people who attended the opera and specifically sat on the balcony. Their seating arrangements, Linda brings up to question if their seating arrangements had anything to do with how intense the music sounded, maybe people sitting on the bottom floor didn’t experience the music at the same intensity as the balcony. It’s a good question that we will never know but should keep in mind. But the term of the riot itself came to light two years after the opera occurred, “The first mention of physical altercations at the premiere came from eyewitness Carl van Vechten, who claimed that a man sitting behind him ‘beat rhythmically on the top of my head with his fists.’ This evocative quote comes from 1915—two years later, as even firsthand accounts were embellished in the retelling.” When Linda mentions this quote it brings out the truth of how much we really know about what happened that night. What happened at the opera then become a game of telephone. Everyone knows the game of telephone and they know how easy it is to mess up a message. But so far this game of “telephone” that’s connected to that night is all we have. But Linda goes on to inform us, “As Levitz puts it, the myth establishes a “false causality…between artistic revolution and bodily revolt.” It tells a version of music history that people want to be true, of Great Art having the power to make people do things. The extreme reaction of the audience reinforces the reputation of The Rite as one of the greatest works of art of the twentieth century. ” If the riot never really happened then why do we talk about it and why is it talked about as the biggest riot in classical music? The only thing we know about the “riot” itself is possibly broken news or opinions coming from people who didn’t like the idea of change in opera coming from Stravinsky whos originally famous for “The Nutcracker”.

The first time I watched the performance of “The Rite of Spring” I was in shock. Personally, I am not a big opera listener but from what we’ve heard in class I’ve developed an understanding of what that type of music is and how it sounds. The second I heard the first few beats of “The Rite of Spring” I knew it was something completely different and it sounded like the type of music you hear in a horror film or in a bad nightmare. I understand why the people in the crowd could’ve acted that way, when you get used to how something is you develop an expectation. If I were a person in the audience in 1913 I would’ve been left shocked and confused because comparing it to “The Nutcracker” this show could be understood as a scene of chaos. I honestly think I would’ve reacted the same as others because back then the way we saw music wasn’t as broad as we see it today. Back then you didn’t have much to compare it to and it’s clear that people weren’t very open-minded. So it’s understandable for the crowd to react in such a way because many can say this opera performance was ahead of its time. Today if this was performed people would’ve simply labeled it as different and edgy and put it in a different category.