Second Movement: Fugual counterpoint 

Stravinsky’s love for musical form reaches one of its most expressive peaks in the fugue, a genre that has long been regarded as a hallmark of compositional mastery. The movement opens with a fugue subject in C minor, consisting of just three pitches—angular and spare, with little in the way of traditional development. The subsequent episodes function less as clearly defined sections and more as textural expansions, creating a sense of flow rather than structural delineation.

As additional voices enter, the texture becomes denser, and a second fugue is introduced, weaving together multiple tonal centers simultaneously. This polytonal layering generates a heightened complexity that remains tightly controlled within Stravinsky’s architectural logic.

What stands out most, however, is the ending of the movement. Stravinsky subverts expectations for a contrapuntal conclusion by introducing a wholly new homophonic episode—one that serves not as a final stretto or canonical intensification, but rather as an independent coda with its own formal and harmonic identity. The impression is that Stravinsky, inspired by Bach’s fugal techniques, isolates that “new element” Bach often introduces in the closing bars of a fugue and expands it into a fully articulated closing section.

 Here below the full score and reduction of this passage:

In a work as intricate as the Symphony of Psalms, one useful entry point into its dense complexity is to examine the structural framework that holds it together. Stravinsky’s approach to form is often more accessible than the theoretical or harmonic systems at play. A clear example of this can be found in the first two movements of the Symphony of Psalms.

In the first movement, we encounter a technique that Stravinsky had already explored in earlier works: that of anticipating later sections through distinct introductory materials. In this movement, there are two such introductions, each harmonically distinct (the first centered around E minor, the second leaning toward C, with melodic hints of an octatonic C# scale), and each serving a different function.

The result is a kind of musical question-and-answer structure that immediately establishes the directional intent of the movement. These introductory ideas provide the thematic DNA for the sections that follow. For instance, the arpeggios presented in the first introduction later reappear as accompanimental textures in the second introduction, and eventually become foundational to the principal theme introduced with the entrance of the voices.

The main theme unfolds, and a transitional passage referencing the second introduction—characterized by fast arpeggios (Reh. 6)—leads to a new thematic section, this time embellished by the oboe, which doubles the melody in the upper register. The material from the second introduction is re-employed to guide us toward section B, a developmental episode containing new material and representing the climactic point of the movement.

Stravinsky then uses the second introduction once again to return to the final A section, now enriched with a suspended coda in G, which finally resolves—though unexpectedly—into C minor, thus preparing the fugal movement that follows.

Despite the apparent complexity of these intertwined harmonic and thematic worlds, the formal structure can be summarized in clear architectural terms. When reduced to its basic layout, we can perceive a coherent and economical design:

                                INTRO 1 – INTRO 2 – A – (intro 2 transition) – A2 – INTRO 2 – B – INTRO 2 – A3 – CODA

This formal clarity offers insight into Stravinsky’s compositional logic: beneath the surface richness lies a tightly constructed architecture that not only organizes the material but enhances its expressive trajectory.