In the first article, “100 years ago today, ‘The Rite of Spring’ incited a riot in a Paris theater,” the author discusses what went down and what he believes happened in this ballet’s premiere. The author says that to this day, there is still not a clear answer as to what took place during that performance and he uses the word “hazy” to describe people’s memory of what happened. Everyone can agree that this ballet ended in “mayhem and chaos.” People in the audience ended up throwing things like vegetables at the stage which is what insinuated the chaos. Even with this going on, the performers kept going and the ballet itself was violent too. In the next article, the author explains what actually happened at this event. The author starts by saying that due to the ballet’s harsh instrumental sounds and ugly costumes, the audience having such a reaction is almost validated. However, he then shifts to saying that the riot actually never happened. The balcony sections would have experienced Stravinsky’s harsh music even worse due to the sound bouncing off of concrete walls. The author then goes onto saying, “Since this is the only audience perspective that has been preserved in history, we have no idea whether other sections of the audience experienced the same disorientation.” It was a disrespectful and even racist performance as well. He also states, “The ballet ignited explosive tempers, but the blasts were not all directed at the stage.” There is no mention of any physical fights that took place, only verbal, so therefore this “riot” did not happen. It is a myth. When I first watched this ballet, I thought that it would be something very boring and it is not something I would enjoy watching a whole performance of. If I was actually in the audience in 1913 watching this, I honestly probably would have not stayed for the entire show.
I liked how simple and straightforward your analysis was. When you spoke about the first article, “100 years ago today, ‘The Rite of Spring’, you were able to contradict everything that the author said by explaining and providing evidence from the second article that proves otherwise. By doing so, you were able to stimulate the thought that what was said to have projected that night, and has spread so, is indeed most likely not true. In a cohesive way, you were able to justify this argument.