ABSTRACT
Fernand-Georges Roquebrune, writing in the Revue critique des idees et des livres, accepted Emile Vuillermoz's notion of polytonality when it enriched the musical palette, and when it was used sparingly and non-systematically for special impact. Roquebrune contrasts Vuillermoz's ideas with Milhaud's practice; he questions the systematic and aggressive use of polytonality, criticizing the way in which Darius Milhaud flouts the convention of allowing one tonality to dominate. In admitting that polytonality and atonality can produce the same effect, Milhaud revealed his preoccupation with the compositional process rather than the aural experience. Milhaud's arguments linking polytonality to national traditions can be compared to Arnold Schoenberg's and A. Webern's attempts to argue that free atonality and the twelve-note method were inevitable developments of the Austro-Germanic tradition. Stravinsky had exerted an important influence on Milhaud's harmonic polytonality, as Milhaud acknowledged. It is impossible to separate Milhaud's preoccupation with tonal independence from his concern with instrumentation.
