Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky

[Don]

hmmmm

Don't knock entertainment value.  Haven't you felt the thrill of watching Barry Manilow belt out one of his many transcendent tunes?  If we're lucky, he will be on a tv show soon.

[Maciek]

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

You make it sound so easy...

[The Mad Hatter]

hmmmm

Don't listen to Haydn, then?

[karlhenning]

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.)

Well, but that just pulls the question back to "what is important in music?"

At any rate, we must agree that Stravinsky's music had a much wider impact on, say, other composers than did that of Prokofiev.  But that is a different matter to the question of profundity.

[quintett op.57]

how?

[quintett op.57]

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

hmmmm

What does it mean?
Personnally, I would not listen to music if it was not an entertainment.
I remind you the definition of entertainment :http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment

[quintett op.57]

I have quite a clear preference for Stravinsky but I don't vote.

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."

I've just listened to his Concerto for string orchestra and once again I enjoyed the melodies very much.

Well, but that just pulls the question back to "what is important in music?"

For me pleasure, which implies (still specifically for me) changes of rythms, surprises, development of themes (mainly these 3 factors, but not only, of course, there are tons of things to enjoy in music. I gave you a kind of short description of my taste).

At any rate, we must agree that Stravinsky's music had a much wider impact on, say, other composers than did that of Prokofiev.  But that is a different matter to the question of profundity.

How many of the voters have strictly considered the profundity of both composers?

[karlhenning]

There is profundity in, for example, the Prokofiev piano sonatas of a sort which one does not find in the piano solo music of Stravinsky.

To repeat, I greatly admire the music of both;  I am not trying, Corkin-like, to elevate Prokofiev at Stravinsky's cost.  It is simply that I find the "which of them is more profound?" question tendentious, simplistic, misguided.

[Mark G. Simon]

What does it mean?
Personnally, I would not listen to music if it was not an entertainment.
I remind you the definition of entertainment :http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment

I think you're right. Entertainment is an important aspect of music without which all the deeper elements of this art would come to nought. We shouldn't even have to argue this point except we, as classical musicians, feel threatened by popular culture to the point where we're afraid to associate ourselves with anything having to do with it.

[karlhenning]

Both composers enjoyed great international success with stage works, so I don't see the entertainment factor as favoring (or, as some might think, handicapping) one rather than the other . . . .

[karlhenning]

I know this little detail may go against the grain of "broad comparisons" . . . but music for piano solo, is not music for two pianos.

An audience getting pleasure is not a validation of art.

Even in cases where the audience gets pleasure out of profundity, right?

[karlhenning]

karl, piano music is piano music

Sure, and we can eliminate 90% of the subtlest and most insightful writing on music by reducing the number of pigeonholes.

Essentially, you (karl) can't weigh the 2 and make a choice. Fair enough.

Essentially, you (James) want to try to write a letter with a nib the size of the Flatiron Building.  Personally, I don't get a lot out of such discussions.

[karlhenning]

BTW, James, among the people who find it manageable to choose between the two, Prokofiev looks the clear winner so far, doesn't he?

[Boris_G]

I dont think its that separate karl, I believe profundity & influence (on composers) are definitely interwoven & interrelated...

Erm, assuming composers are human like anyone else, and therefore don't have some supernatural ability to unerringly be influenced by the profound, I don't think that automatically follows at all.

[Don]

You make it sound so easy...

It's not hard.  By the way, I visited your fine country a few weeks ago to attend my son's wedding.  It was a 12 hour affair replete with an endless supply of food, musical entertainment and vodka.  Managed to visit Torun where Copernicus lived - very attractive city with helpful citizens.  Not speaking Polish, we needed all the help we could get.

[greg]

well, at least Prokofiev is winning this one.
that's a win for me......

but I don't think I'll ever get over the Ginger vs. Mary Anne poll.

You guys suck one moment and then kick butt the next! 
I'm $#@!$#@!%#@! confused.......!!!!! 

[Don]

well, at least Prokofiev is winning this one.
that's a win for me......

but I don't think I'll ever get over the Ginger vs. Mary Anne poll.

You guys suck one moment and then kick butt the next! 
I'm $#@!$#@!%#@! confused.......!!!!! 

It was inevitable that Ginger would win - an experienced and sexy lady vs. a hayseed who wouldn't know a sexual act if she was watching it.

[Boris_G]

no its not a "supernatural" ability, it comes from insight and knowledge....coupled with a critical and discerning ear. the 2 are definitely interwoven, to suggest otherwise is well, idiotic...

If I understood you rightly, you were implying that the fact something has a widespread influence means that it has profundity. I naturally took issue with this. But do I take it, then, that this is *not* what you meant. If so, then where does this leave your argument that Stravinsky is a more 'profound' composer since his influence is wider than Prokofiev's?

btw I think I even disagree with your claim that it is necessary to have 'insight and knowledge' in order to be influenced by something 'profound'. Several composers and musicians have been influenced by Bach or Beethoven without showing the slightest evidence of having 'insight and knowledge' into their music.

[quintett op.57]

Fun / resourceful entertainment is OK, but please ...

YOU added the adjectives.

Not even Stavinsky's Concerto or Sonata for 2 Pianos? How about the 3rd mvt. from Petrouchka for solo piano? the 4 etudes?

good remark

It is a very simple question, not misguided nor tendentious  - one that doesnt ask which is the most entertaining, btw....but asks which of the 2 is the more profound musical creator.

Let's define "profundity in music" first, because I doubt everyone agrees about this. I personnally think it's very related to entertainment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment).
I would propose this as a definition : A pleasure which is not easy to grasp.

[Mark G. Simon]

I have no idea of how we might define profundity in music, but my feeling is that Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms is the most profound musical statement of the 20th century. Hyperbole, maybe, but this is how I feel about it.

I was tempted to say "profoundly moving" which, if we were to accept that, would tie the concept of profundity to an emotional reaction, which I don't know that I want to endorse. Hmm.. maybe, maybe not.

When I say "profoundly moved" I mean not just in the degree to which I am moved, but also the nature of this movement. One may be moved to tears by a tragic ending in an opera, or to joy in an ecstatic "Hallelujah". Stravinsky gives you cause for neither of these reactions. His music famously avoids the usual emotional cues. And yet by the time one has finished experiencing his ritual of worship one feels that one has spoken directly to God and received a reassuring answer. At least I do.