Shostakovich vs Stravinsky vs Rachmaninov vs Prokofiev

[Xenophanes]

Rachmaninoff without a doubt.

I have nothing against Strav, Prok, or Shosty, but the question wasn't about greatness, originality, historical significance and so on, but which is my favorite.

[eyeresist]

The Prodigal Son, On the Dnieper, Le Pas d'Acier, and The Stone Flower. All of them are worth hearing. My favorite is On the Dnieper. I've fallen in love with this ballet. Wonderful score.

Thanks. The Steel Step is a lot of fun; I have an Abravanel recording which is actually really good. On the Dnieper hasn't grabbed me yet (I think I have the suite recorded by Depriest and Rozhdestvensky). Recommendations for the Stone Flower? I know Jurowski's "revival" of it was praised, but perhaps that has been superceded.

[Mirror Image]

Thanks. The Steel Step is a lot of fun; I have an Abravanel recording which is actually really good. On the Dnieper hasn't grabbed me yet (I think I have the suite recorded by Depriest and Rozhdestvensky). Recommendations for the Stone Flower? I know Jurowski's "revival" of it was praised, but perhaps that has been superceded.

The only recording I own of On the Dnieper is with Jurowski on CPO. It's really a great performance and this ballet should be heard in it's complete form. Yes, Jurowski's The Stone Flower is very good as is Noseda's on Chandos. Rozhdestvensky's is pretty good but suffers from bad audio quality. I think the general problem I have with The Stone Flower is that it's a bit overlong. It's short on memorable material and seems, at many times, like notespinning, which is rare from Prokofiev, but I would take this ballet over anything Rachmaninov wrote. Anyway, seek out the whole Jurowski on CPO series, it's great.

[eyeresist]

Thanks, MI. I have a CD with Jarvi conducting excerpts from the Stone Flower; don't know how you feel about Jarvi. I will look for the CPO discs.

[Mirror Image]

Thanks, MI. I have a CD with Jarvi conducting excerpts from the Stone Flower; don't know how you feel about Jarvi. I will look for the CPO discs.

You're welcome. Those excerpts are actually very well performed by Jarvi (one of my favorite Prokofiev conductors). All of the Jurowski CDs should be able to be found for good prices. I remember when I bought them I got a great deal on them. Sarge has said he got great deal through jpc but I'm not sure if their sale for these recordings is still going.

[jwinter]

Prokofiev, narrowly.  All those marvelous melodies... Romeo & Juliet and Alexander Nevsky were 2 of the works that first got me into classical music years ago.

Confession time -- while I love Prokofiev and Rachmaninov, and greatly enjoy some Stravinsky, I'm still not a gigantic Shostakovich fan.  Most of the symphonies I've heard don't do much for me -- I've actually warmed much more quickly to the solo piano works and the string quartets, which is unusual for me.  Nothing against DSCH, of course -- my musical path just hasn't carried me there yet.

[Mirror Image]

Prokofiev, narrowly.  All those marvelous melodies... Romeo & Juliet and Alexander Nevsky were 2 of the works that first got me into classical music years ago.

Confession time -- while I love Prokofiev and Rachmaninov, and greatly enjoy some Stravinsky, I'm still not a gigantic Shostakovich fan.  Most of the symphonies I've heard don't do much for me -- I've actually warmed much more quickly to the solo piano works and the string quartets, which is unusual for me.  Nothing against DSCH, of course -- my musical path just hasn't carried me there yet.

Yeah, Shostakovich is a hard, jagged pill to swallow for some. I've heard some people say if you like Prokofiev then you'll naturally like Shostakovich. This isn't true at all. They're really different from each other and while Shosty borrowed a few tricks from the ol' Prokofiev grab bag, he still remained a unique composer of his own with his own distinctive musical language.

[starrynight]

Shostakovich would be the expected leader really based on reputation, Stravinsky I've tended to feel is a bit overrated, Rachmaninov probably has the least reputation of them.

[The Six]

Based on piano music only:

1. Scriabin
2. Shostakovich (for op. 87 alone)
3. Prokofiev
4. Rachmaninoff
5. Schnittke
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Stravinsky

[Mirror Image]

Shostakovich claims for too much seriousness in listening. Even in grotesque. As if he was a Beethoven. But he was not.

Actually, I think you're wrong on all accounts. Shostakovich wrote a lot of different kinds of music and in many genres. There is a lot of good-natured humor and sarcasm in many of his works (i. e. Symphony No. 9, Jazz Suites 1 & 2, The Bolt, The Golden Age). I don't think he thought of himself as some kind of Beethoven. That's such an absurd, uneducated assertion on your part. He was by all accounts a very humble man who happened to find a way to express himself despite the difficult strain that was put upon him by the Soviet government. There were many times when Shostakovich didn't even know whether he was going to live to see the next day because he was so fearful of what might happen to him or his family. All he wanted more than anything was to be left alone.

All of this, of course, doesn't even begin to tip the iceberg in all of what he had to endure under Stalin's reign.

[mszczuj]

I don't think he thought of himself as some kind of Beethoven.

Of course not. This seriousness is what he thought about music (You know: Music). And then he work in this Music.

Or even not what he thought about music himself. It was just what was concerned to be the essence of music in Soviet Union. And he works in it.

[Mirror Image]

Of course not. This seriousness is what he thought about music (You know: Music). And then he work in this Music.

Or even not what he thought about music himself. It was just what was concerned to be the essence of music in Soviet Union. And he works in it.

Well the analogy you used just didn't make much sense. That's all I'm saying.

[Conor71]

For me its Shostakovich by a long way although I am also interested in Prokofiev to a lesser extent.
I do love Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos and Vespers though - beautiful works! .

[mszczuj]

Well the analogy you used just didn't make much sense. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not sure if your lack of ability to catch some senses is really aproppriate reason for making statements about education level of anybody else.

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century. The concept of music (or rather concept of art) which was the background of the musical life in Soviet Union was not fully suitable to make possible to understand this simple fact.

Shostakovich was as good as possible within this model. But this model was simply invalid. Prokofiev was much better when worked outside it. His main achievements (of course it is my opinion and my experience) from period after his return to Soviet Union were piano and violin sonatas which was not so much involved in this model of art as the part of state propaganda. But his orchestral music from this period is for me much less interesting than orchestral music of Shostakovich. On the other hand Shostakovich even in his best symphonies was not so interesting (for me, of course for me) as was Prokofiev in his best as 2nd symphony or 3rd piano concerto.

I mean Shostakovich was able to make the almost interesting symphony about Lenin, Prokofiev was not. But you can make only almost and not really interesting symphony about Lenin. And for being able to make such the almost interesting symphiony about Lenin you must accept some points (I mean really accept) which make you unable to make really interesting symphony.

In other words both Shostakovich and Rachmaninov are for me in some sense the naive composers. Prokofiev and Stravinsky are not.

All I wanted to say is: Shostakovich is not my man.

(Though I like some his works like the 6th Symphony or the 8th String Quartet).

When I think why I can't like him as much as I like Prokofiev, my answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda).

[starrynight]

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century.

The first half of the 20th century still had some heroic rhetoric, but it is a long time after the late classicists and the original romantics.  That may be one reason I prefer music from the second half of the 20th century where I think music became more inward.

[PaulR]

I'm not sure if your lack of ability to catch some senses is really aproppriate reason for making statements about education level of anybody else.

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century. The concept of music (or rather concept of art) which was the background of the musical life in Soviet Union was not fully suitable to make possible to understand this simple fact.

Shostakovich was as good as possible within this model. But this model was simply invalid. Prokofiev was much better when worked outside it. His main achievements (of course it is my opinion and my experience) from period after his return to Soviet Union were piano and violin sonatas which was not so much involved in this model of art as the part of state propaganda. But his orchestral music from this period is for me much less interesting than orchestral music of Shostakovich. On the other hand Shostakovich even in his best symphonies was not so interesting (for me, of course for me) as was Prokofiev in his best as 2nd symphony or 3rd piano concerto.

I mean Shostakovich was able to make the almost interesting symphony about Lenin, Prokofiev was not. But you can make only almost and not really interesting symphony about Lenin. And for being able to make such the almost interesting symphiony about Lenin you must accept some points (I mean really accept) which make you unable to make really interesting symphony.

In other words both Shostakovich and Rachmaninov are for me in some sense the naive composers. Prokofiev and Stravinsky are not.
All I wanted to say is: Shostakovich is not my man.

(Though I like some his works like the 6th Symphony or the 8th String Quartet).

When I think why I can't like him as much as I like Prokofiev, my answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda).

For the bolded section:  By linking Shostakovich to LvB, you are evaluating DS's music, whether directly or indirectly.  And I quote: 

As if he was a Beethoven. But he was not.

How is that not an evaluation?  LvB is arguably among the top 3 composers of history, you claimed he doesn't match up (Another argument for another day).  If you're going to say that, don't be surprised if people (correctly) think you are evaluating DS. 

For the bolded and Italicised:  Another judgement, and an opinion. 

For the underlined:  You are entitled to your opinion, of course.  It is fine not to like DS's music, as it's ok to not like other composers music.  I don't want to give you the impression that you are "wrong" for not liking his music.

You're assertion that he spent to much time with the State Philharmonic is a problem is absurd, there is no reason to even discuss that. 

Lastly, how do you measure Naivity in music?  I would like to understand where you are coming from, as that's the last thing I think of when I listen to a DS symphony. 

[Mirror Image]

I'm not sure if your lack of ability to catch some senses is really aproppriate reason for making statements about education level of anybody else.

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century. The concept of music (or rather concept of art) which was the background of the musical life in Soviet Union was not fully suitable to make possible to understand this simple fact.

Shostakovich was as good as possible within this model. But this model was simply invalid. Prokofiev was much better when worked outside it. His main achievements (of course it is my opinion and my experience) from period after his return to Soviet Union were piano and violin sonatas which was not so much involved in this model of art as the part of state propaganda. But his orchestral music from this period is for me much less interesting than orchestral music of Shostakovich. On the other hand Shostakovich even in his best symphonies was not so interesting (for me, of course for me) as was Prokofiev in his best as 2nd symphony or 3rd piano concerto.

I mean Shostakovich was able to make the almost interesting symphony about Lenin, Prokofiev was not. But you can make only almost and not really interesting symphony about Lenin. And for being able to make such the almost interesting symphiony about Lenin you must accept some points (I mean really accept) which make you unable to make really interesting symphony.

In other words both Shostakovich and Rachmaninov are for me in some sense the naive composers. Prokofiev and Stravinsky are not.

All I wanted to say is: Shostakovich is not my man.

(Though I like some his works like the 6th Symphony or the 8th String Quartet).

When I think why I can't like him as much as I like Prokofiev, my answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda).

You don't like Shostakovich's music and you prefer him to another composer, that's fine, but don't make such silly assertions that don't do anything but reveal your lack of understanding of Shostakovich's merits as a composer. You did make a comparison between Beethoven and Shostakovich. Beethoven is one of the most revered composers in music history. I don't like a lot of Beethoven, but this is just the reality. What is also a reality is the popularity and greatness of Shostakovich whether you agree or disagree, his music is still some of the most compelling music to come out of the 20th Century. History has been very kind of Shosty and there are plenty of people who hold his music in high regard and he's still being performed in the concert halls. Not that this means he's a great composer by any stretch of the word, but merely that his importance has been evaluated and he remains a composer people are very much interested in hearing again and again. He's one of my absolute favorite composers and I think he is, indeed, one of the greatest in music history.

[not edward]

OK, I'll bite.

I wouldn't be able to answer if this were a question of 'greatest', but -- simply put -- of these four, Prokofiev consistently speaks the most directly to me.

[mszczuj]

For the bolded section:  By linking Shostakovich to LvB, you are evaluating DS's music, whether directly or indirectly.  And I quote:  How is that not an evaluation?  LvB is arguably among the top 3 composers of history, you claimed he doesn't match up (Another argument for another day).  If you're going to say that, don't be surprised if people (correctly) think you are evaluating DS. 

There are some other options to make remarks about music not only very good, good, bad, very bad.

I wrote "Shostakovich claims for too much seriousness in listening. As if he was Beethoven." And it was about problem with too much seriousness not with trying to write too good music.

I really can't understand how you can imagine that it is possible to accuse anybody of trying to be better.

I just think that this kind of seriousness which is possible in Beethoven music was appropriate only because it was written in the very transitional period in the history of orchestra - it was not written for the institutional orchestra.

I mean there is some lack of naturality in institution of philharmony.

For the bolded and Italicised:  Another judgement, and an opinion. 

I did not denied that I made judgment or opinion,  I only denied that sense of my comparison of Beethoven and Shostakovich was in evaluation of their music.

You're assertion that he spent to much time with the State Philharmonic is a problem is absurd, there is no reason to even discuss that.

Yes, it is absurd. What a luck I did not make any assertion like this. It was not about the musicians but about the state. You probably are not able to understand what means the state orchestra in the police state. You probably think that the state means the taxes as in a free world. No. The state means pressure. And some useful Khrennikovs.

Lastly, how do you measure Naivity in music?

I just see it. Some composers are not naive at all. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky. They absolutely understand all intellectual context of music.

Naivity has nothing to lack of value as it could be a very good source of inspiration.

I would like to understand where you are coming from, as that's the last thing I think of when I listen to a DS symphony. 

What do you mean by "where you come from"?

[PaulR]

There are some other options to make remarks about music not only very good, good, bad, very bad.

I wrote "Shostakovich claims for too much seriousness in listening. As if he was Beethoven." And it was about problem with too much seriousness not with trying to write too good music.

I really can't understand how you can imagine that it is possible to accuse anybody of trying to be better.

I just think that this kind of seriousness which is possible in Beethoven music was appropriate only because it was written in the very transitional period in the history of orchestra - it was not written for the institutional orchestra.

I mean there is some lack of naturality in institution of philharmony.

I did not denied that I made judgment or opinion,  I only denied that sense of my comparison of Beethoven and Shostakovich was in evaluation of their music.

Yes, it is absurd. What a luck I did not make any assertion like this. It was not about the musicians but about the state. You probably are not able to understand what means the state orchestra in the police state. You probably think that the state means the taxes as in a free world. No. The state means pressure. And some useful Khrennikovs.

I just see it. Some composers are not naive at all. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky. They absolutely understand all intellectual context of music.

Naivity has nothing to lack of value as it could be a very good source of inspiration.

What do you mean by "where you come from"?

I am not sure what you are exactly saying in that DS claims too much seriousness in listening.......before I dismiss it as another absurd argument, please explain it to me.  As it stands, it makes no sense.

I did not denied that I made judgment or opinion,  I only denied that sense of my comparison of Beethoven and Shostakovich was in evaluation of their music.

And yet, you continue to evaluate DS's music, even indirectly.

Yes, it is absurd. What a luck I did not make any assertion like this. It was not about the musicians but about the state. You probably are not able to understand what means the state orchestra in the police state. You probably think that the state means the taxes as in a free world. No. The state means pressure. And some useful Khrennikovs.

Semantics maybe.....But this is what you said:

my answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda)

You claimed he was involved in propaganda because he wrote for State Philharmonic Orchestras, even though only 4, maybe 5, were outwardly "Progandist" (2, 3, 7, 11, 12).  Where can you say that he wrote too "serious" music just because he wrote for the LPO?  (or more specifically, Mravkinsky who prmiered 5-12?)  Instead of attacking me and my knowledge (or, in your (incorrect) view, my lack of knowledge) come with an argument that makes sense, or at least apply the same judgements to Prokofiev who wrote for the same institutions after he returned to Russia.

I just see it. Some composers are not naive at all. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky. They absolutely understand all intellectual context of music.

Naivity has nothing to lack of value as it could be a very good source of inspiration.

Convenient that you have no way of measuring Naivity.  Therefore, I can claim everything Prokofiev wrote was full of said quality, (I won't say it, because it's not measurable, and not really true.)

What do you mean by "where you come from"?

Don't pretend you don't understand.  I would like to understand your line of thinking.  Simple enough?