Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

[eyeresist]

I wish I liked the Third and Fourth symphonies better. Maybe it's Ozawa's fault.  But fact is, even Abbado's account of the Third (excellent though it is rightly accounted) doesn't leave me enthralled with the piece.

I don't know these performances, but of Jarvi, Gergiev, Rozhdy and Kuchar, I actually favour Kuchar in these two works. Jarvi seems superficial to me, Gergiev is structurally unclear (but has the best sound), Rozhdy (apart from the Soviet sound) is rather overbearing and gets a rough performance. In the 4th, only Kuchar understands the importance of the woodblock towards the end of the first movement.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I wish I liked the Third and Fourth symphonies better. Maybe it's Ozawa's fault.

Just a thought, but as far as the fourth - as you state - I wonder if perhaps the blame couldn't be laid in the hands of Ozawa. Not that I wish to browbeat Ozawa, but seems to me Jurowski's performance (on CPO) of the source material for the fourth - the ballet The Prodigal Son - is mighty impressive. Which leads me to believe there's more to the work than Ozawa perhaps is revealing (though I haven't heard Ozawa).

Although option 2: it might simply be the work doesn't sit well in your palate.

[Nick]

I haven't tried this, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here. Stravinsky was just as prolific.

It's about 1:3 in playing time.

I don't think there'd be any problem talking about Prokofiev in intellectual termns. Speaking of which: "vis à vis" means "in relation to" rather than "compared to"  -  if that's what you meant

Yes, you're right about that. Sometimes, I just get so caught up in things (and in the rhythm of language) that I forget certain words!

Yes, I think you're wrong. Not so much about these composers "Americaness" but rather in that this is a very strange, completely unfruitful way of looking at these composers. Prokofiev wrote a fair number of compositions that sound completely cosmopolitan, and some of his musicc sounds very "Russian". There's also a fair amount of Schumann in his music. So go figure.

(Most of what I said before was a joke.)

[Nick]

Aye; to cast Prokofiev as an outsider, it were necessary to confine the field to a subset of academia. Happily, the world of living music is much broader.  Why, there are performers and music directors, and not academics only! 

I'm curious about one particular issue. I was reading an article in the New Republic in which a musicologist viciously attacked a Professor of History because he authored a book on music history and supposedly did not have the musicological expertise this musicologist believed was sufficient. Music criticism has always seemed to be rather interdisciplinary, often incorporating film, history, culture studies, performers, dramatists, etc., but it does seem to me that many academic musicologists can often be protective and defensive of their field. Which leads me to a bigger question.

Do you, Karl, feel that the academic study of music that you've been through, that the doctoral level training in theory that you've experienced has "improved" your taste in music, if such a thing can exist? That is, do you feel that it's enabled you discern the "good" from the "bad"? Or, at the very least, did it deepen your appreciation of music?

Analogously, my degree is in theatre, and I find it very, very difficult to say. I remember, though, that there were a number of students from my undergraduate years that put on shows unaffiliated with any academic department and thought all of us who majored in theatre were snobs. And then I also see articles that make me wonder questions like, "who would be better prepared to write a book on [composer]?" Someone with a background in music theory, history, a performer, a die-hard fan?

I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts, Karl.

[karlhenning]

Just a thought, but as far as the fourth - as you state - I wonder if perhaps the blame couldn't be laid in the hands of Ozawa. Not that I wish to browbeat Ozawa, but seems to me Jurowski's performance (on CPO) of the source material for the fourth - the ballet The Prodigal Son - is mighty impressive.

I am with you viz. that last point: I am completely convinced by (and enamored of) the source ballet.

[karlhenning]

What do you think about Fiery Angel, Op.37, Karl?

I need to revisit it, or better put, to visit it properly.  Once on a time (back in Buffalo) I did own a recording of the complete opera.  The recording passed out of my possession before I could get to know it properly.  (Not before I did listen to it, but there are many instance in my experience where initial exposure to a recording is unreliable as any guide.)

[karlhenning]

Do you, Karl, feel that the academic study of music that you've been through, that the doctoral level training in theory that you've experienced has "improved" your taste in music, if such a thing can exist? That is, do you feel that it's enabled you discern the "good" from the "bad"? Or, at the very least, did it deepen your appreciation of music?

Well, I learnt a great deal that has been worthwhile, which I think more or less orthogonal to the progression of my taste.  A lot of music which I first heard during my schooling, I liked immediately.  OTOH, there were times during my schooling when my ears were "pointed" in fairly specific directions (I mean, by my own inclination at the time), and when I listened to some music which just "did other things," it left me cold — but in many cases when I have revisited this music decades after, I took to it heartily.

Some of what I learnt in those days (by subtle absorption) I after needed to "un-learn";  but overall, I found the experience richly positive.

[The new erato]

Every time I see your new avatar I think "Whatever you do, don't mention the war". Hope you'll change it soon.....

[karlhenning]

I am alive to your concern . . . .

[Dr. Dread]

I am alive to your concern . . . .

Heh.

[eyeresist]

Some of what I learnt in those days (by subtle absorption) I after needed to "un-learn";

That was my experience of university too - the universal verities which eventually turn out to be mere trendy consensus.

[jowcol]

Symphony No.3, Op.44 is a wonderful piece. Perfectly constructed, with no notes in excess.

I'd have to agree with this.  It's my favorite of his bar none, and the only one (other than the first ) which holds up evenly throughout it's length.  I love the first movements of the 2nd and 6th, but I don't find the rest of those as engaging throughout.

[Nick]

I think the 1st and 3rd movements don't have any notes in excess.

I think the rest of the symphonies have some imperfections.

2nd: There's some repetitiousness in the 1st movement, about 5 minutes into the piece.
4th: The 4th movement is a bit uneven.
5th: The 1st movement is shody and repetitious; the rest is flawless.
6th: The 3rd movement isn't put together too well; the rest is flawless.
7th: Lovely piece, but the main theme of the 4th movement isn't particularly inspired.

Then again, perfections and imperfections may not be such a great way to evaluate music. There's a lot out there that's perfectly serviceable, but not that imaginative.

[karlhenning]

I think the rest of the symphonies have some imperfections.

2nd: There's some repetitiousness in the 1st movement, about 5 minutes into the piece.
...
5th: The 1st movement is shody and repetitious; the rest is flawless.
6th: The 3rd movement isn't put together too well; the rest is flawless.
7th: Lovely piece, but the main theme of the 4th movement isn't particularly inspired.

Then again, perfections and imperfections may not be such a great way to evaluate music.

The trouble is, that not all of us will agree that these bits with which you are somehow dissatisfied, are "imperfections."  As a composer, I have no quarrel in the least with how the final movemet of the Sixth is put together, for only one instance.

[jowcol]

I don't believe (and I strong hope against) the possibility of there being an objective standard to  measure what makes a symphony "flawless" and one flawed. At what point can all unanimously agree that there are (in the words from the play Amadeus) "too many notes!".

For me, I love every bar of the first movement of the second symphony, and although I really like the theme that starts the second movement, I think after a while it collapses under its own weight.

For the 1st movement of the 5th-- I'd agree that I also perceive it as not holding together as well as it could, but there are is one passage there I really love-- one of his most profound moments-- in my admittedly subjective opinion. 

<snip>
Then again, perfections and imperfections may not be such a great way to evaluate music. There's a lot out there that's perfectly serviceable, but not that imaginative.
<snip>

Agreed.  Some composers (and works) I'll wade through waiting for the two minutes that makes it all worthwhile.  Others pull me in from the start.   

Also, the notion of what an "imperfection" is often subjective.  Mussorgsky's works were considered highly flawed in his generation, until his discovery in the next.   Read contemporary reviews for the symphonies of Beethoven, the premiere for Rite of Spring, and the scathing reviews the John Coltrane Quartet got in 1961, these were all deemed to be highly flawed creations.   

If there was ever a universally shared , consistent formula for what defined good music-- I'd take up a new obsession.  Music would have nothing left to offer.

[Nick]

The trouble is, that not all of us will agree that these bits with which you are somehow dissatisfied, are "imperfections."  As a composer, I have no quarrel in the least with how the final movemet of the Sixth is put together, for only one instance.

Glad to hear it. I may have been unduly critical here, but sometimes I try to give Prokofiev detractors the benefit of the doubt.

[Nick]

What are some thoughts on The Gambler, Op.24? I don't think we've discussed this work.

[karlhenning]

What are some thoughts on The Gambler, Op.24? I don't think we've discussed this work.

No, I don't think we have; I need to get to know it better.

[Nick]

It's the most difficult piece of tonal music I've ever heard. It makes a lot of demands on the listener. I really couldn't understand it for the first 8 or so listens.

[karlhenning]

I remember kind-of-liking the "four portraits from" on one or other of the Järvi discs;  and I gave a slight listen to the opera (probably not the whole thing, either . . . it was at about the time I was preparing my June recital) sometime last year.  But I shall happily give it another lash.