Chez Stravinsky

[greg]

In what sense is there more a case to be made for Stravinsky as the "greatest composer of the 20th century" than Prokofiev?

He was MUCH more influential, for one.

[Nick]

It's curious that you were very reluctant to take a stand in the "Stravinsky vs. Prokofiev" thread, but you've taken a stand now.

If you think that melody is the most important aspect of music, then that makes you more likely to pick Prokofiev. If you're drawn to serial works, then that probably makes you more likely to pick Stravinsky.

I don't judge a composer based on their degree of influence. If I did, I'd judge Schoenberg or Stravinsky more highly.

To me, the size of a composer's output matters. This makes me think less highly of Stravinsky or the Viennese school than Prokofiev.

[Nick]

You're absolutely right. Stravinsky was more influential than Prokofiev. I don't consider that a measure of a composer's strength.

Schoenberg was likely a more influential composer than Stravinsky. Does this mean that Schoenberg was more important or even greater than Stravinsky? Stravinsky was also likely the most influenced among the great 20th century composers. Does this mean that he was a lesser composer because of it?

[Nick]

Even a Prokofiev-hater like Richard Taruskin acknowledges that Prokofiev had a talent for melody that was unsurpassed in the 20th century. If you consider that at the end of their lives, both Stravinsky and Schoenberg acknowledged the supremacy of melody, then you have a reasonable argument that Prokofiev is the greatest of 20th century composers.

Karl Henning may say that it is implausible to make an argument for Prokofiev being the greatest of 20th century composers, but I don't think what I've said in the previous paragraph is implausible. Does anyone think I've said something implausible?

Perhaps it is only implausible in Karl Henning's mind. At any rate, it looks like Karl is just as capable of immaturity as all the rest of us.

[karlhenning]

If you think that melody is the most important aspect of music, then that makes you more likely to pick Prokofiev. If you're drawn to serial works, then that probably makes you more likely to pick Stravinsky.

That is a peculiar statement, but at least you are consistent in reducing the matter to improbable simplicities.

I don't judge a composer based on their degree of influence. If I did, I'd judge Schoenberg or Stravinsky more highly.

Degree of influence is a valid artistic question;  it does in fact mean something artistic, when we acknowledge that Beethoven's music was more influential than that of Dittersdorf.  I'll say for the hundredth time that I do not feel any need to "determine" that either Stravinsky or Prokofiev is "greater" than the other.  I don't know when either Stravinsky or Schoenberg had occasion to slap you around at a formative age, but you should simply admire Prokofiev for the music he wrote, rather than expend pointless energy in "proving" that he's "greater" than either Stravinsky or Schoenberg.

To me, the size of a composer's output matters. This makes me think less highly of Stravinsky or the Viennese school than Prokofiev.

So you think more highly of Telemann than of Prokofiev, right? And more highly of Haydn as a symphonist than of Prokofiev, right?

Schoenberg was likely a more influential composer than Stravinsky.

(a) How should we "measure" such a thing?

(b) What would be the point?  I mean, a comparison such as "was Stravinsky more influential than Prokofiev?" is comparatively easy (though we agree that the answer does not "mean" that one is "greater" than the other).  But both Schoenberg and Stravinsky have been seminal influences in music.  What does it matter, which of them was "more influential"?

Even a Prokofiev-hater like Richard Taruskin acknowledges that Prokofiev had a talent for melody that was unsurpassed in the 20th century. If you consider that at the end of their lives, both Stravinsky and Schoenberg acknowledged the supremacy of melody, then you have a reasonable argument that Prokofiev is the greatest of 20th century composers.

Karl Henning may say that it is implausible to make an argument for Prokofiev being the greatest of 20th century composers, but I don't think what I've said in the previous paragraph is implausible. Does anyone think I've said something implausible?

If a bizarre grasp of the facts, and a penchant for eccentric irrelevance, are related to implausibility, then, yes, what you've said is implausible.  Stravinsky and Schoenberg were melodic composers throughout their careers;  your cartoon of "deathbed melodic conversions" here is . . . weird.

So Prokofiev had a talent for melody; sure, it's one of things (and only one of the things) in his music we all admire and love.  (And, by the way, a talent for melody is not so easy to extricate from a talent for other dimensions of music, as you seem to imply.)  I missed the memo that we can basically forget all other musical considerations, if there's a pretty tune involved.

Be a good chap, remind us all where that pronouncement is posted?

TIA.

[karlhenning]

Ok, I'll admit I haven't listened to them all a bunch of times yet, but after a couple of listens, the ones I'm referring to include much of the chamber music- stuff like the Duo Concertant, Piano Sonata, Movements for Piano and Orchestra, etc.
To me, the first two sound like some kid trying to imitate Stravinsky's style and ending up sounding very dull and boring. The third is the same thing, except Schoenberg is the one being imitated. 
Hopefully, I find something to like about them over time...

What do you think about these pieces, Karl?

Gosh, you don't like the Duo Concertant, Greg?  My only complaint is with the historical recording . . . Stravinsky's piano is almost muffled in the background.  A pleasure to hear Szigeti, though, of course.

[karlhenning]

Early on, I got very well acquainted with L'histoire (I was in a stage production at my undergrad college). All of Stravinsky's stylistic periods were early imprints for me.

[karlhenning]

But then, of course, there's pretty tunes a-plenty in Stravinsky.

Ten fine melodies one recalls right off:

1.  The March from L'histoire du soldat
2.  The Lacrimosa from Requiem Canticles
3.  All of the Cantata, really, but let's settle on "Tomorrow shall be my dancing day"
4.  The Overture to Mavra
5.  The Bridgegroom's song on the last page of Svadebka
6.  The Gloria from the Mass
7.  The Notturno from the Concerto per due pianoforti
8.  More instances than can be briefly mentioned, in the Symphony in Three Movements and the Symphony in C.
9.  The Alleluia which concludes A Sermon, A Narrative & A Prayer.
10.  And, of course, the Alleluia at the end of the Symphony of Psalms.

. . . and this list makes a point of avoiding "the usual suspects," i.e., the folk melody borrowings in Le sacre, Petrushka & L'oiseau, and the 'found sources' of the neo-classical works.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

If you think that melody is the most important aspect of music, then that makes you more likely to pick Prokofiev. If you're drawn to serial works, then that probably makes you more likely to pick Stravinsky.

I don't subscribe to that. 

[greg]

Nice posts, Karl. I would add to that list the opening melody to "Renard." 

[Nick]

That is a peculiar statement, but at least you are consistent in reducing the matter to improbable simplicities.

Degree of influence is a valid artistic question;  it does in fact mean something artistic, when we acknowledge that Beethoven's music was more influential than that of Dittersdorf.  I'll say for the hundredth time that I do not feel any need to "determine" that either Stravinsky or Prokofiev is "greater" than the other.  I don't know when either Stravinsky or Schoenberg had occasion to slap you around at a formative age, but you should simply admire Prokofiev for the music he wrote, rather than expend pointless energy in "proving" that he's "greater" than either Stravinsky or Schoenberg.

So you think more highly of Telemann than of Prokofiev, right? And more highly of Haydn as a symphonist than of Prokofiev, right?

(a) How should we "measure" such a thing?

(b) What would be the point?  I mean, a comparison such as "was Stravinsky more influential than Prokofiev?" is comparatively easy (though we agree that the answer does not "mean" that one is "greater" than the other).  But both Schoenberg and Stravinsky have been seminal influences in music.  What does it matter, which of them was "more influential"?

If a bizarre grasp of the facts, and a penchant for eccentric irrelevance, are related to implausibility, then, yes, what you've said is implausible.  Stravinsky and Schoenberg were melodic composers throughout their careers;  your cartoon of "deathbed melodic conversions" here is . . . weird.

So Prokofiev had a talent for melody; sure, it's one of things (and only one of the things) in his music we all admire and love.  (And, by the way, a talent for melody is not so easy to extricate from a talent for other dimensions of music, as you seem to imply.)  I missed the memo that we can basically forget all other musical considerations, if there's a pretty tune involved.

Be a good chap, remind us all where that pronouncement is posted?

TIA.

Talk about reducing the matter to improbable simplicities.

Influence, a talent for melody, how much great music a composer wrote are all variables that influence the degree to which someone might respect a composer. Karl's suggesting here that I've chosen which variable is most important for the rest of you.

But what really galls is your suggestion that a talent for melody is not a valid consideration of musical quality, while the degree of a composer's influence is. But maybe other people have an opinion.

[greg]

I just realized this is the same discussion going on 3 threads at the same time...

[Nick]

I'm trying to close it in the "Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky" section.

[karlhenning]

I just realized this is the same discussion going on 3 threads at the same time...

Right . . . reminds one of A Certain Participant who tends to make every single thread a discussion of Pelléas et Mélisande.  And Another Certain Participant who (until recent sobriety) tended to make every single thread a discussion of Elgar.

Now, a little bird tells me, half of the threads are somehow going to morph into discussions of Prokofiev.

BTW, that is why I brought this question here.

[karlhenning]

I would add that, to my ear, Stravinsky's music is less often "about the melody" in the way that it can be in Tchaikovsky, Prokofieff, Sibelius, and many others, and when the melody is at the front of our attention in IS, it seldom stays there for long. Although one of his pieces may leave a melody in my head, I never get the sense that the piece was just a stage for a stirring, moving, poignant, or heroic melody as one can say about other pieces. So if you go to IS with an expectation that such a melody is necessary, either for your personal musical pleasure and for the collective musical satisfaction of all right thinking music lovers, you are in the wrong queue.

Excellent observations.

[greg]

Don't you just love that closing " ' "signature?
I should end everything I write with a capital G... G

[Guido]

Don't you just love that closing " ' "signature?
I should end everything I write with a capital G... G

Yes, I have remarked on its brilliance too.

[Nick]

I'm not being demeaning here though it could be interpreted that way, but does anyone else see some influence of Poulenc on Stravinsky vis a vis the Sonata for 2 Pianos, Serenade, etc?

Nick

[Guido]

I'm not being demeaning here though it could be interpreted that way, but does anyone else see some influence of Poulenc on Stravinsky vis a vis the Sonata for 2 Pianos, Serenade, etc?

Nick

Why would that be demeaning?

[ChamberNut]

Stravinsky's Violin Concerto is fast becoming one of my favorites of all violin concerti.  It may not be on the same grand scale as Beethoven's, Brahms' or Tchaikovsky, but there is just something unique about it.  I can't quite put my finger on it.