Topic: Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky

[James]

[karlhenning]

Banana, or, as either Sergei Sergeyevich or Igor Fyodorovich would say, banan!

[scottscheule]

I remember reading a book by Copland where he said: "Remember melody isn't everything.  For example, Prokofiev is a better melodist than Stravinsky, but he's not the better composer."

[karlhenning]

Remember melody isn't everything.  For example, Prokofiev is a better melodist than Stravinsky, but he's not the better composer.

Ouch!  The left hand allows that Prokofiev has finer talents in some ways, while the right hand flat out smacks him silly.

[jwinter]

I remember reading a book by Copland where he said: "Remember melody isn't everything.  For example, Prokofiev is a better melodist than Stravinsky, but he's not the better composer."

Yes, there's probably something to that.  I find the question impossible to answer as posed.  As far as who's my personal favorite of the two, that's easy -- Prokofiev, by a wide margin.  I also tend to prefer Prokofiev to Shostakovich, but then I suppose I'm eccentric

[Mark]

As far as who's my personal favorite of the two, that's easy -- Prokofiev, by a wide margin.

^

I'm with him.

[greg]

Stravinsky is more influential, but......
i like Prokofiev more since he's written an endless supply of music that I like.

[greg]

i think part of the reason is that Stravinsky developed new techniques that composers in the future could develop, while Prokofiev's melodic-based music was more old-fashioned.

[scottscheule]

Thanks James.

Copland's right.

[karlhenning]

James, it isn't at all clear to me why you thought the rest of us did not understand the adjective profound.

Scott, Copland likely is right, in that few perhaps would make that claim.  But I, for one, will entertain the argument.  Perhaps Prokofiev is the "more profound" of the two.

At any rate, my own feeling is that the two composers were of very different character and musical method;  but they both produced a large body of work which ranges very satisfactorily from the profound, to brilliant surface-play.

[Sergeant Rock]

Here is Copland's exact quote from the Melody chapter...

"Moreover, composers are far from equally gifted as melodists. Nor should their music be valued solely according to the richness of their melodic gifts....

On the other hand, why should the melodist be automatically considered less profound just because he gives us a great tune? Schubert isn't profound? Schumann isn't profound? Mozart?  Handel?...Elgar? 

Sarge

[scottscheule]

Sarge, who's arguing for automatically giving less consideration to the melodist?

Karl, I'll entertain the argument, too.  In fact, I retract my earlier affirmation: I'm not sure who has more profundity.

[The Mad Hatter]

To my mind, Stravinsky wrote far more important music, and Prokofiev wrote far more entertaining music.

(Edit: I've got nothing against entertaining music, by the way.)

[BachQ]

Proko v. Shosty is a more realistic comparison ....... in which case I would ever-so-slightly opt for Proko .......

[BachQ]

To my mind, Stravinsky wrote far more important music, and Prokofiev wrote far more entertaining music.

I place great importance on music's entertainment value .......

[The Mad Hatter]

I place great importance on music's entertainment value .......

Likewise, but I still think that something like The Rite of Spring (to use a perfectly obvious example) is more important musically than anything Prokofiev did.

That said, I'd almost always listen to Prokofiev first.

[Maciek]

I find it absolutely impossible to choose.

[Mark G. Simon]

There's a great Stravinskyist conspiracy to downplay Prokofiev's importance.

 

[Don]

I find it absolutely impossible to choose.

You can do it.  If you can pick a wife, you can pick a composer.

[Don]

There's a great Stravinskyist conspiracy to downplay Prokofiev's importance.

 

It's good to know I'm not the only one tuned in to this conspiracy.