Bartok vs. Stravinsky

[kyjo]

This poll pits two of the most important and influential 20th-century composers against each other. Well, the vote for me was quite easy: Bartok. I love Stravinsky's earlier works (that is, up to and including The Rite), but I can't say I love a lot of his post-Rite works. Stravinsky's music just never struck me as having that much depth compared to a lot of other 20th-century composers. As much as I like some of his neo-classical works such as Apollo musagete, Dumbarton Oaks, the VC, Symphony in C and Symphony in Three Movements, they're not works I look to for emotional gratification.

Bartok, on the other hand, is a composer who has given me more overall satisfaction than Stravinsky. I love a much greater percentage of his music than I do Stravinsky's. Unlike the former, I love all his stylistic periods equally. His music, no matter how violent or dissonant, always reveals a man who put his heart into his work. I find his use of rhythm and harmony much more interesting than Stravinsky's to be honest. There's darkness, pathos and troubled lyricism in all of his music, which I love.

[Mirror Image]

I vastly prefer Bartok to Stravinsky. Not because I think one is better than the other, they're both incredible composers, but I relate to Bartok's emotional, and intellectual, sonic world much more than Stravinsky's. I love a lot of Stravinsky works most notably The Firebird, Petrouchka, Le sacre du printemps, and some of the later Neoclassical works like Dumbarton Oaks, Violin Concerto (which has plenty of emotional depth in it Kyle), Apollo, Orpheus, The Fairy's Kiss, The Rake's Progress, Symphony in C, among others. Bartok's works just strike a deeper chord with me. I've pretty much loved everything he has written with one notable exception, but my favorites include works like The Miraculous Mandarin, The Wooden Prince, all of the concerti, Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta, Bluebeard's Castle, Contrasts, Hungarian Sketches, Cantata Profana, Divertimento for Strings, and the list goes on. I'm still not too fond of Concerto for Orchestra, but this isn't a make or break work and a listener doesn't have to enjoy it to be considered a Bartok fan. He wrote a lot better music IMHO. I also seem to have a slight preference for his middle-period works.

[kyjo]

Yes, the Stravinsky VC's slow movements are some of his most profound utterances. Don't know how I forgot to mention The Fairy's Kiss and Jeu de cartes. They're amongst my favorite neoclassical works of his. I'm not too fond of The Rake's Progress. The neoclassical style doesn't lend itself too well to opera IMO.

[Mirror Image]

Yes, the Stravinsky VC's slow movements are some of his most profound utterances. Don't know how I forgot to mention The Fairy's Kiss and Jeu de cartes. They're amongst my favorite neoclassical works of his. I'm not too fond of The Rake's Progress. The neoclassical style doesn't lend itself too well to opera IMO.

Yes, I love Jeu de cartes too which I forgot to mention. You forgot to mention The Fairy's Kiss and I forgot to mention Jeu de cartes, so we're even now.

[Karl Henning]

... I'm not too fond of The Rake's Progress. The neoclassical style doesn't lend itself too well to opera IMO.

I was some few years warming to The Rake's Progress, but now I like it very well indeed.

I take your point, Kyle, about "emotional gratification"; but I think that misses a large part of what Stravinsky was about, musically. The musical surfaces, so to speak, which are not committed to a particular emotional expression; the cool, gracious austerity; the seductive property of the pure sound. His Mass is utterly different from, say, any of Haydn's, but there is an affinity in the overall manner, and in the spirit. And then, to consider the quasi-liturgical manner of pieces such as the Symphony of Psalms and the Canticum sacrum, or even the Cantata, emotional gratification simply isn't the musical point.

[kyjo]

I was some few years warming to The Rake's Progress, but now I like it very well indeed.

I take your point, Kyle, about "emotional gratification"; but I think that misses a large part of what Stravinsky was about, musically. The musical surfaces, so to speak, which are not committed to a particular emotional expression; the cool, gracious austerity; the seductive property of the pure sound. His Mass is utterly different from, say, any of Haydn's, but there is an affinity in the overall manner, and in the spirit. And then, to consider the quasi-liturgical manner of pieces such as the Symphony of Psalms and the Canticum sacrum, or even the Cantata, emotional gratification simply isn't the musical point.

Karl, I understand that Stravinsky's music isn't about emotional gratification, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It's just that I prefer music that is less "cool" and more volatile than Stravinsky's. So, where's your vote for Stravinsky? I take it you prefer him to Bartok.

[Mirror Image]

Karl, I understand that Stravinsky's music isn't about emotional gratification, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It's just that I prefer music that is less "cool" and more volatile than Stravinsky's. So, where's your vote for Stravinsky? I take it you prefer him to Bartok.

I think one thing you fail to understand, Kyle, is that intellectual stimulation turns into emotional gratification. After all, our minds continuously collide with our emotions on a daily basis. The more you think about something, the more your emotions can get stirred up. Music doesn't have to be volatile or bludgeon you over the head to make it's point. There's a lot to be said in subtlety and the nuances in music.

[kyjo]

I think one thing you fail to understand, Kyle, is that intellectual stimulation turns into emotional gratification. After all, our minds continuously collide with our emotions on a daily basis. The more you think about something, the more your emotions can get stirred up. Music doesn't have to be volatile or bludgeon you over the head to make it's point. There's a lot to be said in subtlety and the nuances in music.

Maybe I'm unusual in this regard, but for me it's the other way around: emotional gratification turns into intellectual stimulation. Once I have emotionally connected with a piece of music, then I have a greater desire to wrap my head around the intellectual aspects of it.

[Mirror Image]

Maybe I'm unusual in this regard, but for me it's the other way around: emotional gratification turns into intellectual stimulation. Once I have emotionally connected with a piece of music, then I have a greater desire to wrap my head around the intellectual aspects of it.

For me, it all depends on the music at hand. I'm not fond of Atterberg or Rachmaninov, two of your favorite composers, but my understanding is they're highly emotional composers, but this doesn't mean I feel the emotion in their music. It's a two way street for me. I have to be both connected emotionally and intellectually to a composer in order to fully appreciate them.

[kyjo]

For me, it all depends on the music at hand. I'm not fond of Atterberg or Rachmaninov, two of your favorite composers, but my understanding is they're highly emotional composers, but this doesn't mean I feel the emotion in their music. It's a two way street for me. I have to be both connected emotionally and intellectually to a composer in order to fully appreciate them.

No matter how similar we may seem, we're two totally different listeners and I'll leave it at that. You're not fond of Atterberg? Since when? You're killin' me, dude!

[Mirror Image]

No matter how similar we may seem, we're two totally different listeners and I'll leave it at that. You're not fond of Atterberg? Since when? You're killin' me, dude!

I've listened to all of his symphonies and they just do very little for me. I admire the craft of the music, but that's about it. Nothing sticks out in my mind as being memorable or compelling.

[jochanaan]

Not "vs.": "and."

My love for Bartok's music is deep and wide-ranging, as is my love for Stravinsky's.  But I think that many people confuse Stravinsky's cool surface textures for a lack of heart.  Even the Symphony in C, one of his "coolest" works, seems to have great heart; and I have never yet been other than deeply moved at hearing the Symphony of Psalms.

[mszczuj]

I love Stravinsky's earlier works (that is, up to and including The Rite), but I can't say I love a lot of his post-Rite works.

One can't really love his after war works because all them are about absolute impossibility of any feelings in the world were is no more Russia. In this world you can be the craftsman as good as you wants but feelings are impossible and love is banned as it is unjusty.

[The new erato]

The musical surfaces, so to speak, which are not committed to a particular emotional expression; the cool, gracious austerity; the seductive property of the pure sound.

This is soooo well put, and probably why I would vote for Stravinsky despite loving Bartok.

[mc ukrneal]

Let me put it this way...If Stravinsky were on Dancing with the Stars, he'd be one of the first voted off. That said, there is no denying his place in history.

[7/4]

Stravinsky by a thin hair.   

[Brahmsian]

Tough choice, so I'm glad I do not have to choose. 

Stravinsky by the thinnest of margins.

[Karl Henning]

Not "vs.": "and."

Word.

[Sergeant Rock]

Stravinsky

[Karl Henning]

Didn't take long for a thread putatively about Bartók and Stravinsky to wander off to Atterberg