Hello

[Mirror Image]

Yes, one of the strongest musical personalities.

+ 1

[Karl Henning]

I wonder that you will still be talking, Signior
Benedick: nobody marks you.

[chadfeldheimer]

Stockhausen could or could not have influenced Stravinsky and even if he did so what? There is no trace of Stockhausen in Stravinsky. Stravinsky's music was always well...Stravinsky's music. He sounded like no one but himself and he carried this ingenuity with him until the very end.

I agree with Ken B that Stravinsky was one of the strongest musical
personalities and I think "Le Sacre du Printemps" is perhaps the greatest
piece of music composed in the 20th century. "Agon" is another favorite
of mine. But of course he was (like every composer) influenced by others
(the largest one being perhaps the influence of his teacher
Rimsky-Korsakov) and hence has traces of them in his music. How can you
be so sure that there are no traces of Stockhausen in his music? I would
assume for setting up such thesis, you have to know the works of both
composers very well. For Stranvinsky I have no doubt you do, but for
Stockhausen?

[Karl Henning]

Agon is a beauty, no question.

[Mirror Image]

I agree with Ken B that Stravinsky was one of the strongest musical
personalities and I think "Le Sacre du Printemps" is perhaps the greatest
piece of music composed in the 20th century. "Agon" is another favorite
of mine. But of course he was (like every composer) influenced by others
(the largest one being perhaps the influence of his teacher
Rimsky-Korsakov) and hence has traces of them in his music. How can you
be so sure that there are no traces of Stockhausen in his music? I would
assume for setting up such thesis, you have to know the works of both
composers very well. For Stranvinsky I have no doubt you do, but for
Stockhausen?

Ah, but to turn the question around to you: how do you know that Stockhausen had an affect on Stravinsky's music that there are traces of his music in Stravinsky's own? I know of the Rimsky-Korsakov influence and that was with good reason since he was his teacher and Stravinsky was quite young when he was taking lessons from him. Anyway, I'm not going to be listening to any of Stockhausen's music for the simple fact that his philosophy about music and the way its presented garners absolutely no interest from me.

[Pat B]

Welcome chadfeldheimer! I see you have met James, karlhenning, and Mirror Image.

Sometimes we talk about composers other than Stockhausen too.

[kishnevi]

Thanks, dude. It says no more than has been repeated here: an assertion of influence on certain pieces, but no musical points to make it anything more than an assertion;  and the report of Stravinsky organizing listening parties, which is certainly interest in hearing the music. Which is not the same as influence.

That article has too much of a fanzine feel (which would not stand in the way of Wikipedia regarding it as a "source").

Meanwhile, James, the Stockhausen expert, doesn't give us musical substance, either, instead offering a D.I.Y. home lecture on COPYING and IMITATING.  Which has the look of conceding my point.

The Wikipedia KHS article has a salutary history of how a comment can be transformed by interlopers into something completely different,  in connection to Stravinsky--from (apparently) a criticism of a general trend among modern composers into a pointed attack on Stockhausen,  which even made its way into a formal biography of Stravinsky.

Nonetheless,  my read of the sources indicates Stockhausen had at best a negative influence on Stravinksy,  by showing the latter a road he chose not to take.   But he did obviously pay attention, even if he disliked the results.

[EigenUser]

Ah, but to turn the question around to you: how do you know that Stockhausen had an affect on Stravinsky's music that there are traces of his music in Stravinsky's own? I know of the Rimsky-Korsakov influence and that was with good reason since he was his teacher and Stravinsky was quite young when he was taking lessons from him. Anyway, I'm not going to be listening to any of Stockhausen's music for the simple fact that his philosophy about music and the way its presented garners absolutely no interest from me.

I don't think that Stockhausen had an effect on Stravinsky, but there are definitely parts of Agon that bring to mind Gruppen. Apparently, Stravinsky liked Gruppen quite a lot, but I sometimes wonder if he was trying to like it so he wouldn't be considered out of date (not that he should have had to worry).

By the way, Mantra is a pretty cool piece. If you like Bartok's Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion then it's certainly worth a listen.

That article has too much of a fanzine feel (which would not stand in the way of Wikipedia regarding it as a "source").

Lots of aspects of Stockhausen have a fanzine feel...

[Karl Henning]

Nonetheless,  my read of the sources indicates Stockhausen had at best a negative influence on Stravinksy,  by showing the latter a road he chose not to take.   But he did obviously pay attention, even if he disliked the results.

That is how I read the matter, as well.

[chadfeldheimer]

Ah, but to turn the question around to you: how do you know that Stockhausen had an affect on Stravinsky's music that there are traces of his music in Stravinsky's own?

Well, as I wrote before, I read about it and also believe to hear it
when listening to Agon. It's a lot easier to find a needle in a
haystack if there are some, than to verify there is no needle if there
is none.

I know of the Rimsky-Korsakov influence and that was with good reason since he was his teacher and Stravinsky was quite young when he was taking lessons from him.

Right and later on he was also influenced by Bach.

[North Star]

is none.Right and later on he was also influenced by Bach.

And Gesualdo.

[Karl Henning]

Right and later on he was also influenced by Bach.

And Webern afterwards.

To continue to contemplate the nuance in this matter, think of his neo-classical period.  Jeu de cartes reflects a singular absorption (and transmutation) of Rossini, which is a different matter than trying to argue that Rossini influenced Igor Fyodorovich.  (I did not use Le baiser de la fée as an example, because — in fact — Tchaikovsky's music was certainly a genuine influence from an early age.)

[chadfeldheimer]

Yes - so he was not immune from getting influenced.

BTW - I found two texts that shown, that Stravinsky at least for a certain time window did not think so negatively about Stockhausen and was even influenced by him. Don't know if they comply with the tight demands of some of you though.

From Wall-Street-Journal with citations from David Toop:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122221027907968931

From stockhausen.org but originally from Seconds Magazine:
http://www.stockhausen.org/stockhausen%20_by_david_paul.html

[chadfeldheimer]

Welcome chadfeldheimer! I see you have met James, karlhenning, and Mirror Image.

Sometimes we talk about composers other than Stockhausen too.

Thanks! Yes my start was heavy on Stockhausen. Even if it doesn't look like, I'm also interested in other composers discussed hear. Therefore I hope my future post will be more balanced in this regard. For being subject of controversial discussions however it seem difficult to match Stockhausen.

[Karl Henning]

Yes - so he was not immune from getting influenced.

BTW - I found two texts that shown, that Stravinsky at least for a certain time window did not think so negatively about Stockhausen and was even influenced by him. Don't know if they comply with the tight demands of some of you though.

From Wall-Street-Journal with citations from David Toop:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122221027907968931

From stockhausen.org but originally from Seconds Magazine:
http://www.stockhausen.org/stockhausen%20_by_david_paul.html

Thanks!

No one claims that Stravinsky was immune to influences.  We call that a straw man   

"Stravinsky admired two things about Gruppen," Mr. Toop clarifies: "First was the sound of the orchestra, because it sounds like no piece before it. Secondly, Stravinsky was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures."

Richard Toop is "a Stockhausen expert," which I do not doubt.  But here, begging your pardon, he sounds like the fan variety of expert.  "Secondly, Stravinsky was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures."  That would sound so much better, with a little more sobriety.  That Stravinsky was fascinated with the rhythmic structures, which are complex, I think would be merely stating the fact.  Anyone who has studied Le sacre knows that Stravinsky was no stranger to complex rhythmic structures.  I certainly grant that this is not a musicological article:  it's a Stockhausen-oriented puff piece (and why not?  It's not often there's a performance of Gruppen).  So "was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures" is one of those "really, it's all about the Karlheinz" remarks.

But set my quibbles aside, Chad:  in your opinion, does that mean that Gruppen specifically was an influence?

In the latter article:

Kontra-Punkte, a piece Stockhausen wrote in group form, came to the attention of Igor Stravinsky and influenced that composer's writing.

I do appreciate your pains here, Chad, but here again is a one-line, name-dropping assertion — and we're just supposed to take the writer's word for it.  Maybe it's true, maybe it is not;  but with nothing but the assertion sitting there, I shall keep faith with my intellect and continue to doubt

If we can find some sober assessment, with musical or other textual examples, I am happy to read it.  No one (again) claims that igor Fyodorovich was "immune to influence."  But no one would take any of these statements of this or that piece "was an influence" as documentation.

Is any piece in which I take an interest "an influence" on my work?  Doesn't that trivialize what we mean by influence?

Webern, yes:  a seminal influence on the late Stravinsky.  Stockhausen?  I have my doubts.

[chadfeldheimer]

But set my quibbles aside, Chad:  in your opinion, does that mean that Gruppen specifically was an influence?

I'm not sure. Did I say that?

In the latter article:

I do appreciate your pains here, Chad, but here again is a one-line, name-dropping assertion — and we're just supposed to take the writer's word for it.  Maybe it's true, maybe it is not;  but with nothing but the assertion sitting there, I shall keep faith with my intellect and continue to doubt

That's right only one line, but at least one that states Stockhausen was an influence.

If we can find some sober assessment, with musical or other textual examples, I am happy to read it.  No one (again) claims that igor Fyodorovich was "immune to influence."  But no one would take any of these statements of this or that piece "was an influence" as documentation.

Is any piece in which I take an interest "an influence" on my work?  Doesn't that trivialize what we mean by influence?

Webern, yes:  a seminal influence on the late Stravinsky.  Stockhausen?  I have my doubts.

I exspected your doubts. What about James' citations?

For me all in all there is quite a number of indices, that Stockhausen had some kind of influence on Stravinsky. At the end it's all a matter of faith.

[chadfeldheimer]

That Stravinsky was fascinated with the rhythmic structures, which are complex, I think would be merely stating the fact.  Anyone who has studied Le sacre knows that Stravinsky was no stranger to complex rhythmic structures. 

That's right, but Gruppen was perhaps the first piece that really excessed in complexity. In this regard it might never have been outmatched but only equaled by the likes of Carter or Ferneyhough. I think that was fascinating for Stravinsky.

I certainly grant that this is not a musicological article:  it's a Stockhausen-oriented puff piece (and why not?  It's not often there's a performance of Gruppen).  So "was fascinated by its sheer complexity of rhythmic structures" is one of those "really, it's all about the Karlheinz" remarks.

Well, I do not know many text's by Toop, but I can imagine you will find somewhere a more serious text by him with basically the same content.

[chadfeldheimer]

Well .. there a different degrees on which it can occur. If you take "an interest" in a work or art, it can influence your own creative thought processes & ideas, it can wedge itself into your brain and stay there. No? And we have to remember Stravinsky was very old at this point, he went through so many phases and was so incredibly creative & inventive, but he had reached an impasse with Neoclassicism .. and was (like most great artists) always looking for ideas or perspective to stimulate his own creativity, keep it vital and fresh, to keep forging ahead and not stagnate or repeat (i.e. once neoclassicism ran it's course, he moved on to his own personal use of twelve tone technique) .. so it is safe to assume that he followed this tendency to his death, and is why he listened-to and took interest in that younger generation of major composers* (and vice versa) and what they were doing, to the point of even complimenting certain works that he heard which tickled his fancy. To me, this influence is not incredibly major (or important even) .. but it was there.

* whom also loved Webern in particular, shared interest of the time.

I completely agree. Maybe also karlhenning can live with your remarks. Nobody said Stockhausen was a hero for Stravinsky as he perhaps is for David Toop.

[Karl Henning]

Well, I do not know many text's by Toop, but I can imagine you will find somewhere a more serious text by him with basically the same content.

I shall hope so;  thanks for being such a good sport!

[chadfeldheimer]

I shall hope so;  thanks for being such a good sport!

Thank you too!