Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

[Mirror Image]

I don't think its nice to say i'm uncouth or uninformed. You hardly know me I just joined this forum. I have no more preconception than anybody else. I just like what I like. If you like the third symphony I have no problem about that. I really like it when his mood is more fun, not dark. He was good at being jolly but could also go deep as in Romeo and Juliet.

I like all the sides of Prokofiev and I'm sure you would too if you put your pre-conceived notions away and listen to the music on it's own merits. Not all music should be joyous or uplifting. There are many more emotions to explore. Are you happy all the time? You don't ever feel depressed? You never felt betrayed? You don't ever feel like telling somebody to f*** off? Anyway, these are things that are apart of the human condition. To deny yourself of these feelings in music is to deceive yourself of your own true emotions.

[Mirror Image]

The most I can take of his darker music is his wartime piano sonatas. Richter and Gilels were his finest interpreters and also Pollini and Argerich. There is still hope in these works and still some beauty amongst the despair. I am an optimist and I need hope.

I'm mostly into orchestral music (i. e. symphonies, ballets, concerti, symphonic poems, vocal/choral with orch.), chamber music (mostly duos, trios, quartets, quintets, sextets, etc.), and some opera (Wagner, Bartok, Ravel especially). I have never cared anything about solo piano, but I do own a few recordings scattered throughout my collection.

[lescamil]

The most I can take of his darker music is his wartime piano sonatas. Richter and Gilels were his finest interpreters and also Pollini and Argerich. There is still hope in these works and still some beauty amongst the despair. I am an optimist and I need hope.

There is some optimism in his more violent works. It just takes a skilled ear to find it, and repeated listenings. Not everything in music is handed to you on a silver platter. That's the beauty of interpretation.

[Mirror Image]

Not everything in music is handed to you on a silver platter. That's the beauty of interpretation.

This is something the new member is going to have to realize. Some works take enormous effort on the listener's part to understand whereas some other works may come a bit easier.

[Mirror Image]

I agree with these two posts. I joined to learn more about my favorite Modern era of the classical. Today I have heard some of Ligeti's works which I had not before. I think this is progress. It is just about time and effort and sorting through their music.

Well allow me to extent an apology your way. I had you pegged, to begin with, as somebody who was narrow-minded and unwilling to try new music. This said, don't think for a second that I'm done arguing with you , because I still feel you've got the potential to develop as a listener.

[Mirror Image]

I shouldnt have said ugly but just too loud. I am not good at talking about this. I am just a listener, not a good writer. I am just saying what I think I don't mean any harm.

You don't like loud music? Don't listen to Jon Leifs's music then!

[lescamil]

I for one like blasting my ears out with Prokofiev and Leifs' music. It may be loud, but the actual notes themselves sans dynamics are quite beautiful and impressive. Prokofiev's sense of harmony (along with perhaps Shostakovich) and its often seductive and engaging sound is what makes it so great. Listen to the harmony of the middle two movements of the third symphony and you'll be converted. As a similar exercise (well, not really similar, but still good), listen to the opening of Leifs' Hekla. The extreme loudness is just another facet of enjoyment and shouldn't be any sort of detriment after all of the other good things these two composers give you.

[lescamil]

You must remember that Glazunov lived at a different time and his sensibilities and disposition toward music has little in common with even the most philistine of listeners today. The music in the Scythian Suite may be loud, but pull out a score and you'll see that it is nothing but distorted. We are not talking about Penderecki's sound mass compositions here. Everything is well organized, meticulously orchestrated, and "well crafted". I really think that you are mentally and subconsciously telling yourself not to like this music just because it makes you go out of your comfort zone and it elicits a reaction that perhaps you are not familiar with. This is not a cause for alarm, but rather something that should cause you to respect and enjoy the work on a deeper level, and no doubt this was Prokofiev's intention. You say all the time that your favorite period is "modern music", but I have news for you. Prokofiev is one of the more conservative composers of the last 100 years and if you can't handle his most daring works (or if you just hate works because they are loud and not "well crafted" [whatever that means]), and you still call yourself a modern music lover, your definition of modern music is probably wrong (I personally wouldn't even call Prokofiev modern). If you really want to expand your tastes, you might want to get past something so pedestrian as a problem with dynamics.

[karlhenning]

I agree with these two posts. I joined to learn more about my favorite Modern era of the classical. Today I have heard some of Ligeti's works which I had not before. I think this is progress. It is just about time and effort and sorting through their music.

Good on you!

[karlhenning]

. . . and some opera (Wagner, Bartok, Ravel especially). I have never cared anything about solo piano, but I do own a few recordings scattered throughout my collection.

Well, but not to know the piano solo music is almost not properly to know either Ravel or Prokofiev, you see.

[Sergeant Rock]

This is something the new member is going to have to realize. Some works take enormous effort on the listener's part to understand whereas some other works may come a bit easier.

And not just new members need to realize that. So, MI, when are you going to make the effort to understand Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Verdi, Schubert, Haydn, Mozart, Handel and Bach? When are you going to tackle the piano repertoire?

Sarge

[karlhenning]

It is true but some of their piano music is orchestrated so people who like that can also listen to that. Ravel Tombeau de Couperin, Prokofiev Visions fugitifs are two.

First off, welcome, by the way!  I might have missed your inaugural in the Introductions thread.

Ravel is a special case, since he himself orchestrated so much of his own piano music.  These orchestrations are indeed value added, as they show another facet of Ravel's musical personality, and reveal something somewhat addition of the music's character. I should say even in his case, though: there is a Ravel to get to know, by listening to the piano solo music, which you miss completely if you just "consume" the notes in the orchestral versions.

Put it another way with a deliberately exaggerated simile:  If I'm at a truck stop, and buy a velvet painting with a rendering of Da Vinci's The Last Supper — how well would upi say I know Da Vinci's work? ; )

I think that the war sonatas tell us most about what he thought of the dictatorship. He didn't like the politics but he had to live there. His soul was for Russia only even though he didn't feel happy about going back.

It's easy to sentimentalize the bios and oeuvre of (for example) the 20th century composers who lived in places of political turmoil, so we should probably be a little careful.  I don't think it's quite right to say of Prokofiev that "he didn't feel happy about going back" to Russia; he dearly missed Russia, and made a quite deliberate (if naïve) decision to repatriate. He was not at all forced against his will to take up residence in the Soviet Union.

And thereby hangs many a tale . . . .

[eyeresist]

Characterising the 3rd symphony as a bunch of crazy noise is a sure sign that you haven't actually listened to it. Sure, it starts out loud - for about 10 seconds. Then it settles down to mp for most of its duration. The finale has some loud, but c'mon, it's the finale.

Edit: I just listened to the Scythian Suite (Abbado), and the same applies: it starts and ends loud, but in between it's mostly quite moderate and certainly never unmusical (in the old-fashioned sense of tunefulness with orchestrations flattering to the ear).

[eyeresist]

I can't get Nevsky out of my head today!


Here's something I posted in the "What are you listening to?" thread last night, on the subject of the 2nd symphony. I have probably made these points in this thread before, but just in case....

First thing when listening to Prok is to get past the conventional wisdom, e.g. Gramophone accolytes who automatically put Jarvi top in anything. Second thing is to take with a grain of salt those who are dismissive of most of the symphonies. I just made myself very angry by reading Santa Fe Listener's review of the Jarvi cycle, in which he said only the 1st and 5th were masterpieces, and that Jarvi was "good enough" for the rest.

Kuchar's cycle definitely has its ups and down, but I put him at or near the top in 2, 3 and 4. Problem is, these are the symphonies taken least seriously of the cycle (except maybe for 7), so most people haven't bothered to listen seriously to the recordings.

I went through a project of comparing all my recordings of the 2nd a while ago. The work itself is problematic. In the blaring first movement, the conductor needs to really work on the section transitions to make the rhetoric work, otherwise it can sound random. In the theme-and-variations second movement, it's difficult for the listener to pick out the continuing theme, plus the individual variations are quite long, and all this means it's difficult to follow. In this case, I think the best thing the conductor can do is characterise each section strongly, and make sure to delineate where one variation ends and the next begins.

From comparative listening, I picked Kuchar as the top. Rozhdestvensky was also a hot contender, until he seemed to lose focus in the long variation of the second movement. I can imagine a better performance than Kuchar - none of those I've heard have been quite hard hitting enough at the end of variation 6.

(I have the recordings of Kuchar, Rozhdestvensky, Weller, Gergiev, Jarvi.)

[eyeresist]

The original piano works are better than the orchestral arrangements, I agree.

That's not what he was saying!

[snyprrr]

I'm interested in trying some SP ballets, or, some of the smaller pieces I've sampled that I like (Dreams, and other moody stuff). The Jarvi series on Chandos seems to have some particularly attractive issues.

What do you think? I'd go for wild, or lush, or just plain awesome!

I've noticed some catchall sets that include a lot of stuff. Anyhow, I'm in your hands...

[ibanezmonster]

Pretty much all of his ballets are excellent.
But to start with, I'd recommend these:

[TheGSMoeller]

Pretty much all of his ballets are excellent.
But to start with, I'd recommend these:

Great recommendation, I'll add to that.
Wonderful performances of Le Pas d'Acier (The Steel Step) and L'Enfant prodigue (The Prodigal Son)

[asin]B0000DB4YG[/asin]

[Mirror Image]

Yes, all of Prokofiev's ballets are worth exploring. The Stone Flower has been a recent discovery of mine. A great work. Outside of the ballets, the symphonies and concertos are essential listening. I heard Sinfonia Concertante for cello and orchestra for the first time a couple of days ago and what glorious work this is. Prokofiev composed so much wonderful music.

[TheGSMoeller]

.
[asin]B00008NRJM[/asin]


This is a disc I've really been enjoying lately, mainly the incidental music to Hamlet. It may seen as a minor piece in 20th Century repertoire, but its sound and emotions are pure Prokofiev. The highlights are the four Ophelia's songs sung by soprano, each feature luxurious and heartbreaking melodies, with the fourth Ophelia song reminiscent of The Field of the Dead from Alexander Nevsky.