Jim Tobin replies to me:

>>Stravinsky didn't change because he wanted to be "progressive."
>>Or at least that wasn't the main reason.  He changed because he
>>felt he had worn out the style he was using. He felt written out.
>
>I think this is more true of Copland, who said he needed some "new notes."

It's true of both.

>But Stravinsky reportedly explained his adoption of serialism by saying
>something like "I have to keep up my reputation as an innovative young
>composer." This may have been his way of saying, "Get off my back," but
>his choice of words is significantly different from Copland's.

He did indeed say this, and I believe for the reason you mentioned.
However, he was interested in serial music at least since the late Thirties
(Webern's music, mainly, certain pieces by Schoenberg) before he met Craft,
although Craft's influence was considerable.  The works of the Forties
(notably the Sonata for Two Pianos and the graveyard scene in The Rake's
Progress) show the influence (and in the Rake's case, considerably more
than influence) of serial procedures.  His crisis of style was something he
didn't want to proclaim, for obvious reasons.  Furthermore, he knew that he
carried a certain iconic status in music as the Anti-Schoenberg.
Significantly, he didn't begin to publish (although I dimly recall he had
begun to write) his serial music until after Schoenberg died.

>I'd always understood that it was Robert Kraft, whom Stravinsky took on
>as secretary after Schoenberg's death, who was at least the catalyst for
>Stravinsky's stylistic shift, but I suppose there must have been some
>predisposition in that direction to pave the path.

Stravinsky had known Craft longer than that - I believe from the
mid-Forties.

Steve Schwartz