Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky

[karlhenning]

In notes to a Boston Symphony concert last month, Harlow Robinson wrote:

The Second Concerto [for violin] achieved an immediate and lasting success with both critics and audience . . . It remains one of the most frequently performed and recorded of all modern violin concerti.

At the end of Robinson's notes, there is the customary info on BSO history with the piece:

THE BOSTON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA gave the first American performances of Prokofiev's Violin Concerto № 2 on December 17 and 18, 1937, with Jascha Heifetz as soloist under the direction of Serge Koussevitzky.  Subsequent BSO performances have featured Heifetz (with Richard Burgin conducting);  Zino Francescatti, Isaac Stern, and Joseph Silverstein (all with Charles Munch);  Masuko Ushioda and Itzhak Perlman (both with Erich Leinsdorf);  Peter Zazofsky (Seiji Ozawa);  Frank Peter Zimmermann (Yuri Temirkanov);  Tamara Smirnova (Carl St. Clair);  Joshua Bell (Charles Dutoit);  Midori (Mariss Jansons);  Kyung-Wha Chung (the most recent subscription performances, under James DePriest in January 2000), and Gil Shaham (the most recent Tanglewood performance, with John Williams conducting on July 8, 2000).

Chances are that the Prokofiev Violin Concerti have been performed here at Symphony Hall with much greater frequency than the Stravinsky Violin Concerto.  I don't see that as 'less respect' for Prokofiev.  Obviously, too, the Boston Symphony commissioned works from both composers.

[Nick]

According the the American Symphony Orchestra League, Prokofiev's works (for orchestra) are performed with more frequency in America than Stravinsky's.

Generally, however, one in three or four musical encyclopedias, dictionaries, or web resources speak in superlatives about Stravinsky in the 20th century.

[karlhenning]

According the the American Symphony Orchestra League, Prokofiev's works (for orchestra) are performed with more frequency in America than Stravinsky's.

Generally, however, one in three or four musical encyclopedias, dictionaries, or web resources speak in superlatives about Stravinsky in the 20th century.

Yes.

[Nick]

In defense of the above, though, there is a case to be made for Stravinsky.

I think we would be curious to hear you defend this.

[ChamberNut]

Prokofiev1891, what are some of your other classical music interests outside of comparing 'Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky'?

Just curious, as you seem really obsessed about this issue?

[Nick]

That's a good question. I'm a huge enthusiast of Prokofiev's works. But that doesn't stop me from appreciating Stravinsky, Janacek, Schumann, Schubert, Haydn, Mozart, Bach, or any other range of composers. Schubert, again, is another example of a composer who didn't have the same amount of influence on a younger generation of composers as some of his contemporaries but who nevertheless is an incredible composer.

What about you, "Mr. Shostakovich?"

[ChamberNut]

That's a good question. I'm a huge enthusiast of Prokofiev's works. But that doesn't stop me from appreciating Stravinsky, Janacek, Schumann, Schubert, Haydn, Mozart, Bach, or any other range of composers. Schubert, again, is another example of a composer who didn't have the same amount of influence on a younger generation of composers as some of his contemporaries but who nevertheless is an incredible composer.

What about you, "Mr. Shostakovich?"

I agree there.  You mention Janacek, and he is one composer I would like to explore more, especially in the operatic area.  I am a growing fan of Shostakovich, but also of Stravinsky and Prokofiev.  I haven't nearly explored them enough as of yet, but am starting to.

I did say "Mr. Shostakovich" in jest.  Those three Russian/Soviet composers are remarkable, and to chose one at the expense of the other would be a real shame.  I'm happy we don't have to. 

[karlhenning]

I did say "Mr. Shostakovich" in jest.  Those three Russian/Soviet composers are remarkable, and to chose one at the expense of the other would be a real shame.  I'm happy we don't have to. 

Hear, hear.

I think we would be curious to hear you defend this.

I wouldn't make the case convincingly, because (what I must have said some four or five times in our multi-thread exchange) I don't believe we can designate (nor do I see any point in designating) a single Greatest Composer of the 20th Century.

In any event, I am by nature disinclined to re-invent the wheel;  and there is general & enlightened consensus which almost unfailingly mentions Igor Fyodorovich in a short list of The 20th Century's Best Composers.  Make the list a little longer, and Sergei Sergeyevich is always in there, too.

If your part in the discussion had been a bit more rational, we should (simply) be at large agreement that Prokofiev is to some extent unjustly (not sure what the right word would be . . . slighted? neglected? maybe just overlooked).  Nor is it any good claiming that this is at all cold-war-political in nature (which undermines your part of the discussion, as the easy counterclaim is that, asserting Prokofiev as "The 20th Century's Best" is just mid-century Moscow boilerplate).  But running down Stravinsky neither 'makes' your claim, nor flatters your own musical acumen.

[Cato]

Schubert, again, is another example of a composer who didn't have the same amount of influence on a younger generation of composers as some of his contemporaries but who nevertheless is an incredible composer.

Not to derail the topic, but let me quibble a bit here: Schubert's influence on Brahms, Bruckner and then Mahler can be argued to be very influential, as profound as Wagner's for the latter two.  I can agree that Schubert is not Wagner in breadth of influence on minor-league composers, but the composers whom Schubert did influence are at the top.

Dick Wagner could have benefited from a few dishes of rainbow Schubert!   0:) 

[Nick]

Not to derail the topic, but let me quibble a bit here: Schubert's influence on Brahms, Bruckner and then Mahler can be argued to be very influential, as profound as Wagner's for the latter two.  I can agree that Schubert is not Wagner in breadth of influence on minor-league composers, but the composers whom Schubert did influence are at the top.

Quite right. Further, I should add that judging a composer on their degree of influence presupposes that the influence had a "positive" effect. Influence is secondary to what it is that the composer did that led to that influence, and then there are certain kinds of composition that are easier to replicate smoothly and certain kinds of composition that are inimitable.

Similarly, just as Stravinsky had melodies, Prokofiev had influence, and nothing is so clear cut. Nevertheless, you (Karl) and I have a difference of opinion in that I don't think that Stravinsky is higher up on a shortlist of great 20th century composers than Prokofiev, and I think geography has an impact on a composer's reputation in a particular country.

I wonder if the countries east of the iron curtain were considered part of your "enlightened" consensus.

[karlhenning]

Quite right. Further, I should add that judging a composer on their degree of influence presupposes that the influence had a "positive" effect.

Now you're just spinning verbiage.  Of course Stravinsky's influence was positive, and encompassed (among many other composers) Prokofiev.

[Nick]

Of course in your mind, but who knows the influences certain composers might have absorbed had they not come into contact with others.

[Cato]

Quite right. Further, I should add that judging a composer on their degree of influence presupposes that the influence had a "positive" effect. Influence is secondary to what it is that the composer did that led to that influence, and then there are certain kinds of composition that are easier to replicate smoothly and certain kinds of composition that are inimitable.

Similarly, just as Stravinsky had melodies, Prokofiev had influence, and nothing is so clear cut. Nevertheless, you (Karl) and I have a difference of opinion in that I don't think that Stravinsky is higher up on a shortlist of great 20th century composers than Prokofiev, and I think geography has an impact on a composer's reputation in a particular country.

I wonder if the countries east of the iron curtain were considered part of your "enlightened" consensus.

(My emphasis above)

Geography is indeed involved, but not in biasing people against Prokofiev or Shostakovich.  It is an old debate as to what kind of music these two would have composed, if they had not lived under the strictures of Stalin and Socialist Realism.

Would Prokofiev have followed the path of the Second and Third Symphonies/The Flaming Angel and would Shostakovich have followed the path of Lady Macbeth of Mtensk?

In either case, it is irrelevant. Stravinsky is there - in some cases - first ( compare e.g. Le Sacre to Prokofiev's later response Ala et Lolly/The Scythian Suite ) or better  (the Capriccio and the Concerto for Piano and Winds vs. Piano Concerto #5.

Prokofiev 1891 wrote:

Influence is secondary to what it is that the composer did that led to that influence, and then there are certain kinds of composition that are easier to replicate smoothly and certain kinds of composition that are inimitable.

I think many would agree that the reason why Stravinsky is given a push higher than Prokofiev is in your statement's last few words.

Of course in your mind, but who knows the influences certain composers might have absorbed had they not come into contact with others.

Irrelevant again, since nothing can be proven about such a statement.  "Who knows" indeed!

[karlhenning]

I wonder if the countries east of the iron curtain were considered part of your "enlightened" consensus.

Well, considering (a) the centralized control of musical programming and (b) the cultural bullhorn in Moscow, the first answer to your question is that few people living east of the Iron Curtain were in a position to judge, musically, for themselves.

The refined answer is, yes, enlightened people east of the Iron Curtain have indeed been part of the consensus admiring Stravinsky's contributions.  Petrushka was an early, seminal influence upon the young Shostakovich.  And the Symphony of Psalms made such a profound impression upon him as an adult, that Shostakovich prepared his own four-hands arrangement of the piece, which he played with his students.

And one of the recordings I have of Agon, is a spirited interpretation conducted by Mravinsky.

You see, if you pry your mind even just a little open, you might see that even the few facts that you bring to the table do not quite mean what you fancy them to.

And someday you must tell us all just how you discovered that Artistic Truth, curiously, really does align with the aesthetics of the Stalin cultural crackdown.

[Nick]

Dear Cato,

I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're saying here. You highlighted my "last works" that "certain kinds of compositions are inimitable." And you mentioned that "I think many would agree that the reason why Stravinsky is given a push higher than Prokofiev is in your statement's last few words."

But what are you saying? (1) Are you saying that the reason Stravinsky is considered more influential vis a vis Prokofiev simply because Prokofiev's compositions are less imitable? (2) Or are you saying something else?

[Cato]

Dear Cato,

I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're saying here. You highlighted my "last works" that "certain kinds of compositions are inimitable." And you mentioned that "I think many would agree that the reason why Stravinsky is given a push higher than Prokofiev is in your statement's last few words."

But what are you saying? (1) Are you saying that the reason Stravinsky is considered more influential vis a vis Prokofiev simply because Prokofiev's compositions are less imitable? (2) Or are you saying something else?

1. Yes
2. No

[Nick]

Well, considering (a) the centralized control of musical programming and (b) the cultural bullhorn in Moscow, the first answer to your question is that few people living east of the Iron Curtain were in a position to judge, musically, for themselves.

The refined answer is, yes, enlightened people east of the Iron Curtain have indeed been part of the consensus admiring Stravinsky's contributions.  Petrushka was an early, seminal influence upon the young Shostakovich.  And the Symphony of Psalms made such a profound impression upon him as an adult, that Shostakovich prepared his own four-hands arrangement of the piece, which he played with his students.

And one of the recordings I have of Agon, is a spirited interpretation conducted by Mravinsky.

You see, if you pry your mind even just a little open, you might see that even the few facts that you bring to the table do not quite mean what you fancy them to.

And someday you must tell us all just how you discovered that Artistic Truth, curiously, really does align with the aesthetics of the Stalin cultural crackdown.

This is a totally suicide argument. Are you really suggesting that among the music-lovers in the USSR, they generally revere Stravinsky more than Prokofiev? How desperate can you possibly be?

As everyone here knows, Prokofiev and Shostakovich are more revered in the USSR than Stravinsky. Take a look at Russian encyclopedias, musical dictionaries, and concert notes. The argument you're proposing is just silly. But maybe Sviatoslav Richter, Mstislav Rostropovich, Neeme Jarvi, Gennady Rozhdestvensky, and Yuri Temirkanov eventually came to their sense and realized "My God, Karl Henning's right. And to think all this time we'd been recording Prokofiev."

Surprise, surprise. Mravinsky made more recordings of Shostakovich than of Stravinsky. And Mstislav Rostropovich made more recordings of Prokofiev and Shostakovich than Stravinsky.

You've gotta get yourself to a sanitarium if you think Prokofiev and Shostakovich are less revered in the USSR than Stravinsky.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

As everyone here knows, Prokofiev and Shostakovich are more revered in the USSR than Stravinsky. Take a look at Russian encyclopedias, musical dictionaries, and concert notes.

I fail to see what Soviet "encyclopedias, musical dictionaries, and concert notes" have to do with anything. WITHOUT QUESTION these publications would've trumpeted SOVIET composers over western composers. What else would you expect in such a cultural climate? 

But among musicians it was a different story. Since you brought up Sviatoslav Richter, here's what he had to say about each of Stravinsky's 'big three' ballets: "Magnificent music". And about Petrushka specifically: "[it] is so clearly Russian".

[some guy]

Well, I must say, I don't find this difficult at all. They're both very nice.

If greatness means anything, Stravinsky is clearly greater. But as I said way back on page two or something, "so what?" Doesn't keep Prokofiev from being one of my more perennial favorites. (I mostly listen to electroacoustic and live electronics nowadays, with a healthy dose of turntablism--Marclay, Yoshihide, Tetreault, Ng, Busratch, and so forth. The people of the past that continue to satisfy the most are Berlioz, Prokofiev, Bartók and Stravinsky.)*

*No, wait! What about Nielsen and Janáček and Krenek and Cage and Ferrari and Bruckner and Mahler and Beethoven and Monteverdi and Vivaldi and Bach and Saint-Saens and Dvořák and Brahms and and and and and and. There, you see. Prolly Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky is just silly. There's no "vs." about it.

N.B., "greatness" probably means nothing.

[karlhenning]

You've gotta get yourself to a sanitarium if you think Prokofiev and Shostakovich are less revered in the USSR than Stravinsky.

You've gotta do a better job of reading what the other fellow actually writes.  When you're equal to that modest intellectual feat, we'll talk.

And: psst!  No longer use the present tense with USSR.  It no longer exists.

(No charge for these services.)