Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky

[Josquin des Prez]

I think Stravinsky was the better composer, but his writing career was terribly disorganized. Trying to make sense of his disjointed and seemingly random compositions it's a real challenge. Perhaps this is why he is known mainly through an handful of his works.

[71 dB]

I think Stravinsky was the better composer

Better in what sense? I don't care if a composer writes "academically" great music. To me that does not matter. To me the best music is moving, enjoyable to listen to. Elgar is the best to me because his music moves me the most. I haven't explored Stravinsky much. I am a Prokofiev newbie. At the moment I'd say Prokofiev's music moves me more. Stravinsky is an interesting composer but damn there is so much other music to explore. I don't know when it is Stravinsky's turn... 

I have stopped thinking about who's the best and who's the second best. I prever just enjoying good music, regardless of who happened to write it.

[Josquin des Prez]

Better in what sense?

Better in the sense he wrote better music.

To me the best music is moving, enjoyable to listen to

If that was all there is to it i would probably be still listening to metal and other lesser forms of expression i picked up while growing up as an ignorant teenager. I don't get how people can get through life without the belief there are real, objective standards the understanding of which ought to be attained in order to better oneself rather the simply follow the most immediate and undeveloped of impulses.

[The Six]

Stravinsky dissappointed me when I looked into more of his pieces.

[71 dB]

Better in the sense he wrote better music.

How do you define better music? Better art? Better food? The more a piece of music improves my quality of life the more I value it. I'd say that's very meaningful.

If that was all there is to it i would probably be still listening to metal and other lesser forms of expression i picked up while growing up as an ignorant teenager. I don't get how people can get through life without the belief there are real, objective standards the understanding of which ought to be attained in order to better oneself rather the simply follow the most immediate and undeveloped of impulses.

I am not talking about "lesser forms of expression." It's good you found classical music after your teenager years but that doesn't mean you need to stop listening to metal. Today I have listened to J.S. Bach's Cantatas, King Crimson, The Prodigy, Samuel Arnold's Overtures and Ranga's Indian new age. To me The Prodigy's Voodoo People is not lesser form of expression compared to J. S. Bach's Ich habe genug, just different in an enriching way. I think Samuel Arnold was the "lesser" figure here...

[71 dB]

Stravinsky is one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century and in the history of music.

Really?

He's simply indispensible. He revolutionized music and had a tremendous impact.

What did he do to revolutionize music? The Rite of Spring is said to be something totally new but I don't know exactly how (orchestration?) I'm not sure if I have even heard that work. I have one Naxos disc of Stravinsky's symphonies. Interesting nice music but not imho revolutionizing. Should I really explore Stravinsky more?

I am currently exploring Prokofiev and finding him a mighty composer of music that has feel, complexity, good orchestration and invention. Romeo and Juliet is same sort of masterpiece imho.

[karlhenning]

This thread really surprises me.

Moi aussi, mon cher.

[karlhenning]

Stravinsky dissappointed me when I looked into more of his pieces.

For me it was very much otherwise.  The more of his work I got to know year by year, the better I liked it.

[karlhenning]

Stravinsky is one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century and in the history of music. He's simply indispensible. He revolutionized music and had a tremendous impact. The history of music itself would not be the same without him. His contributions are so vital & important.

All true, though there are folks here who will directly retort, But what does the music do for me?  And it won't seem to get through to them that there are plenty of us who have a thorough musical fondness for as well as admiration of his work, that it is not the 'academicism' which they would like to pigeon-hole it as.

Prokofiev wrote some great stuff but the history of music would be the same essentially without him. He doesn't belong to that small group of special composers who write masterpieces of the highest order AND have such a tremendous impact & influence on music's future. Stravinsky is one of those rare composers.

Actually, I should argue that he did have a tremendous, and an important, impact;  as did Sibelius, Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich, Prokofiev set a model example of a composer who did not chase after the various strands of the century, but who just did excellent work, relating in specific ways to traditions which he felt no need to "discard," yet in his own distinct voice.

[karlhenning]

[ By the way, I didn't vote either way. ]

[71 dB]

All true, though there are folks here who will directly retort, But what does the music do for me?  And it won't seem to get through to them that there are plenty of us who have a thorough musical fondness for as well as admiration of his work, that it is not the 'academicism' which they would like to pigeon-hole it as.

Do you buy and listen to certain music because there are plenty of people who like it or because you like it?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Stravinsky I can take or leave but I really dislike his later music. Same with Prokofiev.

Once in a long while I will pull out my recording of  Le Sacre du Printemps  and enjoy it but both are 'inconsequential' in my musical universe. 

[karlhenning]

Do you buy and listen to certain music because there are plenty of people who like it or because you like it?

There is a lot of great music out there, Poju, which plenty of people like;  it's no conspiracy for a lot of people to like great music.

Your question is a false dichotomy, too;  I don't buy only music which I already know.  So the suggestion that anyone ought to buy music "because he likes it" is a bit irrational.

[karlhenning]

Stravinsky I can take or leave but I really dislike his later music. Same with Prokofiev.

Examples of the later music of both which you "really dislike," Eric?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Examples of the later music of both which you "really dislike," Eric?

Threni  first of all.

(and that "circus polka" has got to go!  Sorry...  )

[karlhenning]

Threni  first of all.

(and that "circus polka" has got to go!  Sorry...  )

Eric, a single work (for the Circus Polka is but a curio, in any event) by one of the two composers about whom I asked, is no answer.  Unless of course, the answer is that you have not actually heard most of the later works of the two comnposers, and you're just trotting forth prejudice.

[karlhenning]

Of course, that happens a lot here. Why, there's one fellow dismisses Cage as a "charlatan," but hasn't actually listened to any of his music 

[71 dB]

There is a lot of great music out there, Poju, which plenty of people like;  it's no conspiracy for a lot of people to like great music.

Who has said anything about conspiracies? Anyway, there are more Beethoven fans than people liking Stravinsky or Prokofiev.

Your question is a false dichotomy, too;  I don't buy only music which I already know.  So the suggestion that anyone ought to buy music "because he likes it" is a bit irrational.

Fair enough, I mean music you think you will like.

[karlhenning]

Fair enough, I mean music you think you will like.

I don't have so much disposable income to justify buying music which I do not believe I might actually like.  There are a number of factors in adjudging 'musical risk';  whether plenty of people like it, does not much factor in.

[rappy]

James, the influence of a composer is no argument for me. It just tells that the composer was influential on other composers, not that his music was greater.
Mozart did not have great influence, because his style was so unique and nobody could have been able to copy it. Same for Prokofiev IMO.
Few people say that Haydn was greater than Mozart, although he had a lot more influence (apart from opera).

If there were to contemporary composers now and they both wrote a piece, piece a and piece b. You would listen to both and would say that piece a by composer a was undoubtly the greater one. 30 years later we would see that all the young composers follow the steps of composer b. Would that lessen the greatness of composer a afterwards?