Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

Started by Danny, April 07, 2007, 09:29:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

karlhenning

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on May 21, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
Very glad you liked them, Karl. That Op.23 is very difficult to characterize. There's a bit of the narrative form from the Ugly Duckling, Op.18, the invention of the Visions Fugitives, Op.22, impressionism of Op.35, and a sort of Schubertian quality in some respects. But then Prokofiev was maddeningly difficult to characterize himself.

He amalgamated a great variety of musical influences.  Which is one reason I don't much get out of joint over boneheaded 'dismissals' of ProkofievStravinsky was more a model, than (for the most part) any specific musical influence upon his younger compatriot.

Nick

I've actually wondered if the Symphony No.1, "Classical," Op.25 was a model for Stravinsky's first forays into neoclassicism. I wonder if Stravinsky had heard it before Pulcinella or at one point he heard it.

Influence arguments tend to escape me, especially when used to talk about quality. It means that Bach's music was not too good in the 18th or 19th centuries, but those same works went up significantly in quality when they started to have an influence on a younger generation of composers. It implies that Gesualdo is "better" than Stravinsky because he brushed off on him and not vice versa. But, of course, I'm taking the arguments to their extremes.

karlhenning

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on May 21, 2009, 07:32:38 PM
I've actually wondered if the Symphony No.1, "Classical," Op.25 was a model for Stravinsky's first forays into neoclassicism. I wonder if Stravinsky had heard it before Pulcinella or at one point he heard it.

Doubtful . . . I should go back to the respective biographies to confirm that impression.  Prokofiev composed it during the war, whose events cut Stravinsky off from his home while he was busy at work in Paris.  THe distance and the circumstances . . . there's no particular reason the piece should have been on Stravinsky's radar. Dyagilev and his troupe were forced by circumstances to turn their backs to Petersburg and Russia.

Nick

It'd likely be difficult to find out. One music historian told me that, yes, it did provide a model during his neoclassical period. Whether Stravinsky heard it (and he would have had 4-5 years between 1916-7 of the Symphony No.1 "Classical" and 1920-1 for Pulcinella and a couple postwar years) is difficult to say. Certainly he heard it at some point during 1916-1955, but I imagine it'd be difficult to figure this out in any Stravinsky biography since it's not the type of thing he'd want recorded, anymore than the use of folk music in Rite, Firebird, and Petrushka.

I should make it clear that I couldn't give a hoot about any who-influenced-who-more arguments.

karlhenning

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on May 22, 2009, 09:07:44 AM
I should make it clear that I couldn't give a hoot about any who-influenced-who-more arguments.

No, I take it simply as a question of historical interest.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891It'd likely be difficult to find out. One music historian told me that, yes, it did provide a model during his neoclassical period. Whether Stravinsky heard it (and he would have had 4-5 years between 1916-7 of the Symphony No.1 "Classical" and 1920-1 for Pulcinella and a couple postwar years) is difficult to say. Certainly he heard it at some point during 1916-1955, but I imagine it'd be difficult to figure this out in any Stravinsky biography since it's not the type of thing he'd want recorded, anymore than the use of folk music in Rite, Firebird, and Petrushka.

Well, the "couple of post-war years" doesn't necessarily signify, because there was civil war in Russia during all that time.  It was not really a time when music composed within Russia was being readily distributed to the West.  The one who would most likely have brought the symphony west, was Prokofiev himself . . . and a cursory glance at the bio shows him going to visit Dyagilev in 1920, when Pulcinella was already in production.

A couple of other points which make the symphony an unlikely candidate for impact on Stravinsky:  It's a symphony, a traditional genre in which Stravinsky had no interest (it was not until the '40s that he wrote the Symphonies in C and in Three Movements, neither of which bear any particular imprint from the Prokofiev Opus 25);  and its historical inspiration is Haydn, a composer in whom Stravinsky took no particular interest.

Nick

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 09:30:07 AMA couple of other points which make the symphony an unlikely candidate for impact on Stravinsky:  It's a symphony, a traditional genre in which Stravinsky had no interest (it was not until the '40s that he wrote the Symphonies in C and in Three Movements, neither of which bear any particular imprint from the Prokofiev Opus 25);  and its historical inspiration is Haydn, a composer in whom Stravinsky took no particular interest.

This doesn't seem to me like such a strong argument. Still, we're speculating here.

Actually, I really don't think Stravinsky or Prokofiev had much influence on each other. The two most frequently mentioned examples of Stravinsky's influence on Prokofiev are the Scythian Suite, Op.20 and Chout, Op.21. The Scythian Suite, Op.20 is mostly similar to Rite of Spring in its subject matter and "primitive" orchestral colorings. Chout, Op.21 is kind of akin to Petrushka in that there's a playful nature in the way its put together. Some of the orchestration is similar.

Likely, the Symphony No.1, Op.25, "Classical" didn't have much of an influence on pieces like Dumbarton Oaks or Danses Concertantes, either. A biographer at Bard cited the influence of the early Prokofiev piano works on Three Movements from Petrushka, but I don't buy it.

However, I definitely think that Prokofiev's time in Paris pushed him to compete for the modernist crown, but he had a totally different take on modernism than Stravinsky. They were both influenced by Les Six, and I think that contributes to a certain similarity in the way they sound in a few pieces.

greg

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on May 21, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
Greg, what do you think of some of the harder kernals to crack in the Prokofiev piano repertoire, like the Sarcasms, Op.17, Things in Themselves, Op.45, Thoughts, Op.62, or Sonatinas, Op.54?
I don't have any of them, and have only heard some of them once or twice. I do remember like Sarcasms, though.

Nick

Needless to say, I like all of these a great deal.

Sarcasms, Op.17 explores the percussive potential of the piano in a way Prokofiev never really did after. They'll a little like some of the very best Bartok solo piano music, but they've got a little more wit and motoric drive in spots. I'd be interested to hear a Bartok enthusiast compare and contrast these pieces to some of his solo piano music.

Things in Themselves, Op.45 is very introverted. It's unpopular, and I've never heard of a concert pianist wandering into this repertoire. I love it! Good chromatic themes. Sounds very French as well as Russian. Unfortunately, it's one of the only pieces that Boris Berman doesn't seem to get quite right in his first-ever recording of the complete solo piano music. Chiu gets it, though.

Thoughts, Op.62 is, again, very introverted. The first two of the set have angular themes like the opening of the First Violin Sonata that may not be to the taste of some who expect something different from Prokofiev. Everyone's going to like the third and last of the set. Richter used to play this third a lot, and it's on a great recital disc that he came out with on a live in japan set.

Sonatinas, Op.54 took me a very long time to get into. I didn't think he put things together very well, and it seemed whimsical without being substantive. But I can really see the structure in it now. It's highly inaccessible stuff, and yet it's still tonal, doesn't have an unusual time signature, and doesn't resort to a nontraditional vocabulary for its own sake. Boris Berman, who was one of the co-founders of the Prokofiev Society of America at Yale, actually seems to play these pieces quite a bit when he's on the concertizing trail, if that's any indication of their worth.

Anyone else have an opinion about some of these pieces?

Nick

American Ballet Theatre has just created a website for Prokofiev's On the Dnieper, Op.51. It contains a video where you can hear choreographer Alexei Ratmansky talk about the score, and see some of the choreography with Diana Vishneva, Paloma Herrera, and Marcelo Gomes. The link is below.

http://www.abt.org/dnieper/

eyeresist

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on May 23, 2009, 08:46:32 AM
Sarcasms, Op.17 explores the percussive potential of the piano in a way Prokofiev never really did after. They'll a little like some of the very best Bartok solo piano music, but they've got a little more wit and motoric drive in spots. I'd be interested to hear a Bartok enthusiast compare and contrast these pieces to some of his solo piano music.
Barbara Nissman wrote a book on Bartok from the pianist's perspective, and was working on one on Prokofiev, though I don't know if that's been published. She is apparently a specialist in these two, so you might find some answers there.

Herman

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on May 22, 2009, 09:07:44 AM
It'd likely be difficult to find out. One music historian told me that, yes, it did provide a model during his neoclassical period. Whether Stravinsky heard it (and he would have had 4-5 years between 1916-7 of the Symphony No.1 "Classical" and 1920-1 for Pulcinella and a couple postwar years) is difficult to say. Certainly he heard it at some point during 1916-1955, but I imagine it'd be difficult to figure this out in any Stravinsky biography since it's not the type of thing he'd want recorded, anymore than the use of folk music in Rite, Firebird, and Petrushka.

I should make it clear that I couldn't give a hoot about any who-influenced-who-more arguments.

I don't think there's much evidence for Prokofiev steering Stravinsky towards neo-classicism with his first symphony. It's more likely Stravinsky was encouraged on going this direction by Diaghilev. By the time Ballet Russe exoticism's heyday was over Diaghilev started getting more and more interested in pre-romantic forms. This was around the same time he realized it was getting harder and harder to picture a return to Russia, after the revolution. Stravinsky was facing the same predicament.

Nick

Quote from: eyeresist on May 24, 2009, 07:13:26 PMBarbara Nissman wrote a book on Bartok from the pianist's perspective, and was working on one on Prokofiev, though I don't know if that's been published. She is apparently a specialist in these two, so you might find some answers there.

Yes, I looked into this. Nissman is unaware of any encounters between Bartok and Prokofiev.

Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 12:28:10 AMI don't think there's much evidence for Prokofiev steering Stravinsky towards neo-classicism with his first symphony. It's more likely Stravinsky was encouraged on going this direction by Diaghilev. By the time Ballet Russe exoticism's heyday was over Diaghilev started getting more and more interested in pre-romantic forms. This was around the same time he realized it was getting harder and harder to picture a return to Russia, after the revolution. Stravinsky was facing the same predicament.

Who knows.

I wasn't asking whether Prokofiev steered Stravinsky toward neo-classicism but rather whether Prokofiev's neo-classicism had an influence on Stravinsky's.

If not, and I suspect not, it's another example of how unrelated the idea of "influence" is to invention. More times than not, influence has more to do with luck and circumstance than invention and quality. To me, it seems like one of the most trivial and meaningless ways to think about music.

Herman

Admiitedly "influence" is a very dodgy concept, and plain marketforces may have had much more impact on both composers.

karlhenning

I think it simply 'meant' different things entirely to the two composers, and it happened quite independently. For Prokofiev, his first symphony was a "what if?", and it was a spin-off of the work he had done in his conducting class (where they worked with Haydn scores), and it was something of a novelty in process, as he deliberately set to composing away from the piano.

I don't think the idea of tinkering with a pile of source-material from a historical composer would have occurred to Stravinsky, if his cousin Dyagilev hadn't proposed it.

karlhenning

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 27, 2009, 07:11:34 AM
. . . Prof. Gibbs actually gave a decent pre-concert lecture, and considering his comment, he was a model in professionalism. To me, the scandal came when Prof. Richard Wilson, a composer from Vassar, took the stage before one of the last programs. He started innocently enough with a gaffe about formalism meaning "diatonic" . . . .

His gaffe (and serious enough) was in giving the Moscow lackeys of the day a "benefit of the doubt" in supposing that there is actually some musical 'definition' of formalism.  It was just a buzzword for "we've got you by the short hairs."

Nick

One of the more amusing interchanges between Stravinsky and Prokofiev (and one that actually resulted in a composition) came when Stravinsky urged Prokofiev to take up some Schubert waltzes and work some magic on it. What results is a total, note-by-note transcription of some Schubert waltzes for two hands. Total.

Prokofiev says in his autobiography, "For my part, I did not approve of Stravinsky's predilection for Bachian techniques--his 'pseudo-Bachism'--or rather I did not approve of adopting some else's idiom and calling it one's own. True I had written a 'Classical' Symphony myself, but that was only a passing phase. With Stravinsky this 'Bachism' was becoming the basic line of his music."

Stravinsky and Prokofiev were both pretty nasty to each other most of the time.

karlhenning

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on May 30, 2009, 01:47:33 PM
Prokofiev says in his autobiography, "For my part, I did not approve of Stravinsky's predilection for Bachian techniques--his 'pseudo-Bachism'--or rather I did not approve of adopting some else's idiom and calling it one's own. True I had written a 'Classical' Symphony myself, but that was only a passing phase. With Stravinsky this 'Bachism' was becoming the basic line of his music."

Stravinsky and Prokofiev were both pretty nasty to each other most of the time.

Well . . . and where does Sergei Sergeyevich get the idea that his approval is needed there?  8)

Nick

Yes, well, few people have cared for Prokofiev's opinions. But the music world may turn over a new leaf. Prokofiev was actually a very acerbic and delightful writer. His diaries have gotten a certain amount of press lately. In particular, Alex Ross absolutely loved them, it seems, but he's more partial to Prokofiev than most. Certainly, of course, liking his diaries doesn't have to do with liking his opinions, but it makes it more likely, perhaps.

But basta, what about Sarcasms, Op.17; Things in Themselves, Op.45; Sonatinas, Op.54; Thoughts, Op.62? How did we have those absurd discussions on Stravinsky's and Prokofiev's relative merits with so much output unheard?

greg

He also hated church music. I'd love to videotape him in a Pentecostal church.

vandermolen

Brilliant have issued Walter Weller's old Decca set with the LPO/LSO. Some regard this as the best set of the Prokofiev symphonies.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).