Who actually listens to Stravinsky?

[mjmosca]

No one is on the rise. Classical music is being marginalized with each passing generation.

I believe there may be a systemic problem in the US at least. There is a great deal of pressure for new music (some of which is very fine), and thus time must be made for these new works. We barely have the audience to support the number of concerts that exist at present, so it is unlikely that more performances in any given season will be possible. As a result, there is a longer time span between the playing of works by any composer (even Beethoven!) and it is getting more difficult to get concert performances of great but less "popular" works. This includes Stravinsky beyond the 3 famous ballets.

[Mirror Image]

Q: Who listens to Stravinsky?

A: People who like his music.

Pretty simple.

[Androcles]

He's faring better than Hindemith, who largely has already been forgotten    If in the interwar period, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok and Hindemith were the 'big four' names, Stravinsky's really not doing too badly, probably only lagging behind Bartok.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Hindemith's wonderful organ works are very rarely mentioned anywhere these days...

[Mirror Image]

He's faring better than Hindemith, who largely has already been forgotten    If in the interwar period, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok and Hindemith were the 'big four' names, Stravinsky's really not doing too badly, probably only lagging behind Bartok.

You've left Ravel out whose music is still very much a concert staple and, no, I'm not referring to Bolero. Also, Janacek and Strauss were producing some of their most remarkable music between the wars and even they are performed and recorded more often than Hindemith.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Weill, Krenek and Eisler from that 'between the wars' period are barely performed apart from maybe a song here or there. Amazing cultural heaven coming out of Weimar in that time!

[Martin Lind]

I think Strawinsky has written some marvelous music but the point is that his music is not always on this high level. For example "Apollon musagette" contains some really marvelous music which I love and on the other hand alot of music which I think is pretty boring. Le sacre on the hand is a "sensation" piece, very impressive if you listen to it for the first time but not the right piece for repeated listening. The firebird ballet is not heard very often, instead of this the suite.

I would say that the question "Who actually listens to Strawinsky" is wrongly asked. I think, most people who listen to classical music will know Strawinsky. He is somebody well known. But I assume that for many people who heard some of Strawinskys works, he becomes less important when they listen to more music. That means: Bach or Haydn for example can occupy you all your lifetime. But I doubt very much that this is the case with Strawinsky. At least this is my point of view.

[Mahlerian]

I think Strawinsky has written some marvelous music but the point is that his music is not always on this high level. For example "Apollon musagette" contains some really marvelous music which I love and on the other hand alot of music which I think is pretty boring. Le sacre on the hand is a "sensation" piece, very impressive if you listen to it for the first time but not the right piece for repeated listening. The firebird ballet is not heard very often, instead of this the suite.

I would say that the question "Who actually listens to Strawinsky" is wrongly asked. I think, most people who listen to classical music will know Strawinsky. He is somebody well known. But I assume that for many people who heard some of Strawinskys works, he becomes less important when they listen to more music. That means: Bach or Haydn for example can occupy you all your lifetime. But I doubt very much that this is the case with Strawinsky. At least this is my point of view.

I think the exact opposite.  But then again I listen to the Rite on a regular basis (because the sensation is far from the most important part of it), find Apollo sublime throughout, and always prefer the Firebird ballet score to the suites.  Stravinsky wrote so much music of such great quality that he is certainly comparable to a Bach or a Haydn or a Mozart.  Just digging in to some less well-known corner, like the Concerto for Two Pianos or his chamber arrangements of the works for string quartet, yields riches on a high level.

Of the first half of the 20th century, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Bartok were the foremost composers in quality and breadth of oeuvre, and despite his relatively greater prominence, often Stravinsky isn't any better understood than Schoenberg.

[Karl Henning]

The Concerto for two pianos is magnificent.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I think anyone with a large and varied oeuvre will have many many works which rarely get performed or recorded, so by spending more and more time listening to every work by a composer like Haydn might be just as rewarding as listening to every work by Stravinsky.

[Androcles]

You've left Ravel out whose music is still very much a concert staple and, no, I'm not referring to Bolero. Also, Janacek and Strauss were producing some of their most remarkable music between the wars and even they are performed and recorded more often than Hindemith.

I think I include those four on the list as they would have been seen as the major 'progressive' composers at the time. Hindemith was sufficiently prominent to be violently attacked by Hitler, for example. His earlier Neo-Classical music and also works like the Ludus Tonalis would have been seen as quite important, I think.

Undoubtedly there are others from the period who have now come to be seen as more important - perhaps Janacek, but also maybe Martinu, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Ives, Berg, Webern and Varese have probably had more influence on post WW2 music than any of Bartok, Schoenberg, Stravinsky or Hindemith, but at the time they were writing, I think they would have been seen as somewhat marginal figures. About Ravel, I don't really know. I suspect Strauss really belonged, like Elgar, to the period before WW1, and would have been seen as more of an 'institution' by the 20s and 30s. Played - certainly. At the cutting edge - probably not.

[Karl Henning]

I think the exact opposite.  But then again I listen to the Rite on a regular basis (because the sensation is far from the most important part of it), find Apollo sublime throughout, and always prefer the Firebird ballet score to the suites.  Stravinsky wrote so much music of such great quality that he is certainly comparable to a Bach or a Haydn or a Mozart.  Just digging in to some less well-known corner, like the Concerto for Two Pianos or his chamber arrangements of the works for string quartet, yields riches on a high level.

Of the first half of the 20th century, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Bartok were the foremost composers in quality and breadth of oeuvre, and despite his relatively greater prominence, often Stravinsky isn't any better understood than Schoenberg.

And, BTW, I completely agree on Apollo's entire sublimity.

[Rons_talking]

I think Strawinsky has written some marvelous music but the point is that his music is not always on this high level. For example "Apollon musagette" contains some really marvelous music which I love and on the other hand alot of music which I think is pretty boring. Le sacre on the hand is a "sensation" piece, very impressive if you listen to it for the first time but not the right piece for repeated listening. The firebird ballet is not heard very often, instead of this the suite.

I would say that the question "Who actually listens to Strawinsky" is wrongly asked. I think, most people who listen to classical music will know Strawinsky. He is somebody well known. But I assume that for many people who heard some of Strawinskys works, he becomes less important when they listen to more music. That means: Bach or Haydn for example can occupy you all your lifetime. But I doubt very much that this is the case with Strawinsky. At least this is my point of view.

Sorry, I can't agree on Stravinsky. I would say Le Sacre is better the 50th time you listen to it. There is no other  work like it. But that's so well documented I needn't belabour the point. Apollo is an acquired taste for some, but not for me. I loved it the first time I heard it. In a way, it's a demanding work for the listener; so much of the music is sublime, it's hard to appreciate the understated brilliance of many of the passages...at least when first listening to the work. Though I resist narrated works, Persephone is another work I listen to frequently. Stravinsky has the reputation as a modernist who uses rhythm in exciting innovative ways to break new ground. And that might be why some listeners think they won't enjoy his music, but his works are usually full of beauty as well as brilliance.

[PotashPie]

The ballets have some built-in "hype" because of being ballets, the historical reaction...but a lot of it is not hyped. Fanfare for Two Trumpets is just what it says it is. Maybe that's what the OP is sensing...no "hype."