GMG Classical Music Forum

>:D

Banana, or, as either Sergei Sergeyevich or Igor Fyodorovich would say, banan!

I remember reading a book by Copland where he said: "Remember melody isn't everything.  For example, Prokofiev is a better melodist than Stravinsky, but he's not the better composer."

Quote from: Copland
Remember melody isn't everything.  For example, Prokofiev is a better melodist than Stravinsky, but he's not the better composer.

Ouch!  The left hand allows that Prokofiev has finer talents in some ways, while the right hand flat out smacks him silly.

Quote from: scottscheule on July 05, 2007, 10:36:56 AM
I remember reading a book by Copland where he said: "Remember melody isn't everything.  For example, Prokofiev is a better melodist than Stravinsky, but he's not the better composer."

Yes, there's probably something to that.  I find the question impossible to answer as posed.  As far as who's my personal favorite of the two, that's easy -- Prokofiev, by a wide margin.  I also tend to prefer Prokofiev to Shostakovich, but then I suppose I'm eccentric :)

Quote from: jwinter on July 05, 2007, 10:45:31 AM
As far as who's my personal favorite of the two, that's easy -- Prokofiev, by a wide margin.

^

I'm with him. 8)

Stravinsky is more influential, but......
i like Prokofiev more since he's written an endless supply of music that I like.

i think part of the reason is that Stravinsky developed new techniques that composers in the future could develop, while Prokofiev's melodic-based music was more old-fashioned.

Thanks James.

Copland's right.

James, it isn't at all clear to me why you thought the rest of us did not understand the adjective profound.

Scott, Copland likely is right, in that few perhaps would make that claim.  But I, for one, will entertain the argument.  Perhaps Prokofiev is the "more profound" of the two.

At any rate, my own feeling is that the two composers were of very different character and musical method;  but they both produced a large body of work which ranges very satisfactorily from the profound, to brilliant surface-play.

Quote from: James on July 05, 2007, 11:25:16 AM
Here is Copland's exact quote from the Melody chapter...

"Moreover, composers are far from equally gifted as melodists. Nor should their music be valued solely according to the richness of their melodic gifts....

On the other hand, why should the melodist be automatically considered less profound just because he gives us a great tune? Schubert isn't profound? Schumann isn't profound? Mozart?  Handel?...Elgar?  ;D

Sarge

Sarge, who's arguing for automatically giving less consideration to the melodist?

Karl, I'll entertain the argument, too.  In fact, I retract my earlier affirmation: I'm not sure who has more profundity.

To my mind, Stravinsky wrote far more important music, and Prokofiev wrote far more entertaining music.

(Edit: I've got nothing against entertaining music, by the way.)

Proko v. Shosty is a more realistic comparison ....... in which case I would ever-so-slightly opt for Proko .......

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on July 05, 2007, 12:15:20 PM
To my mind, Stravinsky wrote far more important music, and Prokofiev wrote far more entertaining music.

I place great importance on music's entertainment value .......

Quote from: D Minor on July 05, 2007, 12:26:07 PM
I place great importance on music's entertainment value .......

Likewise, but I still think that something like The Rite of Spring (to use a perfectly obvious example) is more important musically than anything Prokofiev did.

That said, I'd almost always listen to Prokofiev first.

I find it absolutely impossible to choose. :-\ 0:)

There's a great Stravinskyist conspiracy to downplay Prokofiev's importance.

>:D

Quote from: Maciek on July 05, 2007, 01:03:02 PM
I find it absolutely impossible to choose. :-\ 0:)

You can do it.  If you can pick a wife, you can pick a composer. ;D

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 05, 2007, 01:22:29 PM
There's a great Stravinskyist conspiracy to downplay Prokofiev's importance.

>:D

It's good to know I'm not the only one tuned in to this conspiracy.

Quote from: James on July 05, 2007, 01:28:00 PM
hmmmm

Don't knock entertainment value.  Haven't you felt the thrill of watching Barry Manilow belt out one of his many transcendent tunes?  If we're lucky, he will be on a tv show soon.

Quote from: Don on July 05, 2007, 01:23:46 PM
You can do it.  If you can pick a wife, you can pick a composer. ;D

You make it sound so easy... ;D

Quote from: James on July 05, 2007, 01:28:00 PM
hmmmm

Don't listen to Haydn, then?

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on July 05, 2007, 12:15:20 PM
To my mind, Stravinsky wrote far more important music, and Prokofiev wrote far more entertaining music.

(Edit: I've got nothing against entertaining music, by the way.)

Well, but that just pulls the question back to "what is important in music?"

At any rate, we must agree that Stravinsky's music had a much wider impact on, say, other composers than did that of Prokofiev.  But that is a different matter to the question of profundity.

how?

Quote from: D Minor on July 05, 2007, 12:26:07 PM
I place great importance on music's entertainment value .......

Quote from: James on July 05, 2007, 01:28:00 PM
hmmmm

What does it mean?
Personnally, I would not listen to music if it was not an entertainment.
I remind you the definition of entertainment :http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment)

I have quite a clear preference for Stravinsky but I don't vote.

Quote from: scottscheule on July 05, 2007, 10:36:56 AM
I remember reading a book by Copland where he said: "Remember melody isn't everything.  For example, Prokofiev is a better melodist than Stravinsky, but he's not the better composer."

I've just listened to his Concerto for string orchestra and once again I enjoyed the melodies very much.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 05, 2007, 02:01:18 PM
Well, but that just pulls the question back to "what is important in music?"

For me pleasure, which implies (still specifically for me) changes of rythms, surprises, development of themes (mainly these 3 factors, but not only, of course, there are tons of things to enjoy in music. I gave you a kind of short description of my taste).

Quote
At any rate, we must agree that Stravinsky's music had a much wider impact on, say, other composers than did that of Prokofiev.  But that is a different matter to the question of profundity.

How many of the voters have strictly considered the profundity of both composers?

There is profundity in, for example, the Prokofiev piano sonatas of a sort which one does not find in the piano solo music of Stravinsky.

To repeat, I greatly admire the music of both;  I am not trying, Corkin-like, to elevate Prokofiev at Stravinsky's cost.  It is simply that I find the "which of them is more profound?" question tendentious, simplistic, misguided.

Quote from: quintett op.57 on July 06, 2007, 12:41:41 AM
What does it mean?
Personnally, I would not listen to music if it was not an entertainment.
I remind you the definition of entertainment :http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment)

I think you're right. Entertainment is an important aspect of music without which all the deeper elements of this art would come to nought. We shouldn't even have to argue this point except we, as classical musicians, feel threatened by popular culture to the point where we're afraid to associate ourselves with anything having to do with it.

Both composers enjoyed great international success with stage works, so I don't see the entertainment factor as favoring (or, as some might think, handicapping) one rather than the other . . . .

I know this little detail may go against the grain of "broad comparisons" . . . but music for piano solo, is not music for two pianos.

QuoteAn audience getting pleasure is not a validation of art.

Even in cases where the audience gets pleasure out of profundity, right?

Quote from: James on July 06, 2007, 11:20:47 AM
karl, piano music is piano music

Sure, and we can eliminate 90% of the subtlest and most insightful writing on music by reducing the number of pigeonholes.

QuoteEssentially, you (karl) can't weigh the 2 and make a choice. Fair enough.

Essentially, you (James) want to try to write a letter with a nib the size of the Flatiron Building.  Personally, I don't get a lot out of such discussions.

BTW, James, among the people who find it manageable to choose between the two, Prokofiev looks the clear winner so far, doesn't he?

Quote from: James on July 05, 2007, 02:10:11 PM
I dont think its that separate karl, I believe profundity & influence (on composers) are definitely interwoven & interrelated...

Erm, assuming composers are human like anyone else, and therefore don't have some supernatural ability to unerringly be influenced by the profound, I don't think that automatically follows at all.

Quote from: Maciek on July 05, 2007, 01:33:34 PM
You make it sound so easy... ;D

It's not hard.  By the way, I visited your fine country a few weeks ago to attend my son's wedding.  It was a 12 hour affair replete with an endless supply of food, musical entertainment and vodka.  Managed to visit Torun where Copernicus lived - very attractive city with helpful citizens.  Not speaking Polish, we needed all the help we could get.

well, at least Prokofiev is winning this one.
that's a win for me......

but I don't think I'll ever get over the Ginger vs. Mary Anne poll.

You guys suck one moment and then kick butt the next!  :'(
I'm $#@!$#@!%#@! confused.......!!!!!  ???

Quote from: greg on July 06, 2007, 12:36:46 PM
well, at least Prokofiev is winning this one.
that's a win for me......

but I don't think I'll ever get over the Ginger vs. Mary Anne poll.

You guys suck one moment and then kick butt the next!  :'(
I'm $#@!$#@!%#@! confused.......!!!!!  ???

It was inevitable that Ginger would win - an experienced and sexy lady vs. a hayseed who wouldn't know a sexual act if she was watching it.

Quote from: James on July 06, 2007, 01:21:13 PM
no its not a "supernatural" ability, it comes from insight and knowledge....coupled with a critical and discerning ear. the 2 are definitely interwoven, to suggest otherwise is well, idiotic...

If I understood you rightly, you were implying that the fact something has a widespread influence means that it has profundity. I naturally took issue with this. But do I take it, then, that this is *not* what you meant. If so, then where does this leave your argument that Stravinsky is a more 'profound' composer since his influence is wider than Prokofiev's?

btw I think I even disagree with your claim that it is necessary to have 'insight and knowledge' in order to be influenced by something 'profound'. Several composers and musicians have been influenced by Bach or Beethoven without showing the slightest evidence of having 'insight and knowledge' into their music.

Quote from: James on July 06, 2007, 11:08:35 AM
Fun / resourceful entertainment is OK, but please ...

YOU added the adjectives.

QuoteNot even Stavinsky's Concerto or Sonata for 2 Pianos? How about the 3rd mvt. from Petrouchka for solo piano? the 4 etudes?

good remark

Quote
It is a very simple question, not misguided nor tendentious  - one that doesnt ask which is the most entertaining, btw....but asks which of the 2 is the more profound musical creator.

Let's define "profundity in music" first, because I doubt everyone agrees about this. I personnally think it's very related to entertainment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entertainment).
I would propose this as a definition : A pleasure which is not easy to grasp.

I have no idea of how we might define profundity in music, but my feeling is that Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms is the most profound musical statement of the 20th century. Hyperbole, maybe, but this is how I feel about it.

I was tempted to say "profoundly moving" which, if we were to accept that, would tie the concept of profundity to an emotional reaction, which I don't know that I want to endorse. Hmm.. maybe, maybe not.

When I say "profoundly moved" I mean not just in the degree to which I am moved, but also the nature of this movement. One may be moved to tears by a tragic ending in an opera, or to joy in an ecstatic "Hallelujah". Stravinsky gives you cause for neither of these reactions. His music famously avoids the usual emotional cues. And yet by the time one has finished experiencing his ritual of worship one feels that one has spoken directly to God and received a reassuring answer. At least I do.

Profundity became involved after the Copland quote.  I'm not sure whose music was more profound--I'd need a slightly tighter definition and more familiarity with Proke's Piano Sonatas.

Now, as to who is the greater composer--which I take it was the original question--it's obviously Stravinsky.

I get the impression that a number of posters only know 'the usual suspects' when it comes to Prokofiev: ie Peter and the Wolf, Classical Symphony, perhaps Piano Concerto No 3 and the more famous bits of Romeo and Juliet.

FWIW, here's a selection of works by Prokofiev which I think are both profound and profoundly moving:

Violin Sonata No. 1 (excellent live recording by David Oistrakh and Sviatoslav Richter on Orfeo)

Piano Sonatas Nos 6, 7 and 8 (No. 7 has been frequently recorded, but makes a lot more sense when you recognise the Schumann song alluded to in the slow movement: try Oleg Marshev's recording on Danacord which, IMHO, best captures its emotional depth).

Romeo and Juliet - the complete ballet, especially the final scene; Suite No. 2 is perhaps the best sampler of the ballet's profundity of feeling.

Symphonies Nos 6 and 7: the latter in particular is often underestimated, but when it is given due emotional weight it reveals itself to be one of his most poignant works, with a remarkably similar emotional trajectory to No. 6 (and so, IMO, revealing that Prokofiev did not retract for a moment the officially lambasted No. 6, but simply made its message more palatable - or perhaps, simply, one which could be missed by the thick-skinned).

Finally, a pre-Soviet work which I'm not sure is 'profound' but which I certainly find deeply moving (and which, btw, Stravinsky loved much to the bemusement of Robert Craft): Violin Concerto No. 1

There are probably other works I should mention, and there's also plenty of other works of Prokofiev's which I find 'moving' without their being profound. But I think no one should think of dismissing him until they know the above works (not that there's any hurry to get to know them - there's so much great music out there by other composers to discover as well...)

Quote from: James on July 06, 2007, 10:50:54 PM
addressing profundity, as in depth, depth of intellect, feeling, or meaning. penetrating or entering deeply into subjects of thought or knowledge; having deep insight or understanding, going far beneath what is superficial, external, or obvious (insight), pervasive or intense; thorough; complete. showing intellectual penetration or emotional depth of the greatest intensity, far-reaching and thorough-going in effect especially on the nature of something (in this case music); extending to great depths...

if this for you means; entertainment, so be it. That's fine. I posed the question for anyone to answer...its open to interpretation, and you can weigh the 2 using whichever criteria you wish or can think of.

allright.
If I were obliged to answer, I'd probably say Stravinsky because Prokofiev has written some easy works, but I'm not sure enough. I won't vote.
I still see no link between profundity and influence, given that I can hear many works whose influence concerned mainly the surface of the works (in my opinion).
The influence of Handel's violin sonata on Beethoven's Kreutzer, for example,or Vivaldi's concertos influence on Bach's.

Quote from: Boris_G on July 06, 2007, 11:36:36 PM
try Oleg Marshev's recording on Danacord which, IMHO, best captures its emotional depth

Ooh! We have a Joyce Hatto fan here! :)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

I am not familiar with most Stravinsky and I haven't heard that many works by Prokofiev either but I'd say Prokofiev.

Quote from: Don on July 06, 2007, 12:33:43 PM
It's not hard.

It's actually easier if I split them up into categories:
piano music - I vote Prokofiev
opera - Prokofiev again
ballet - Prokofiev
concertos - Prokofiev once more though Stravinsky's Capriccio is a very strong contender...
chamber music - Stravinsky
orchestral music not intended for the stage - Stravinsky
vocal music (incl. choral and pieces that involve large ensembles but not opera) - Stravinsky

Hmmm... it's almost a tie.

I could split them up in a different way:
composer I've listened to most (of these two) in my life - Prokofiev
composer I've listened to most over the last 2 years - Stravinsky

Oops. It's a tie again! I think I'll end up voting Debussy. :P

Quote from: Don on July 06, 2007, 12:33:43 PMBy the way, I visited your fine country a few weeks ago to attend my son's wedding.  It was a 12 hour affair replete with an endless supply of food, musical entertainment and vodka.  Managed to visit Torun where Copernicus lived - very attractive city with helpful citizens.  Not speaking Polish, we needed all the help we could get.

Torun was a great choice - definitely my number one recommendation. I'm glad someone helped you out - I was under the impression hardly anyone speaks English over here. :-[

Next time you visit go to Wieliczka - that would be my number two rec. ;D

Quote from: Maciek on July 07, 2007, 09:40:41 AM
Torun was a great choice - definitely my number one recommendation. I'm glad someone helped you out - I was under the impression hardly anyone speaks English over here. :-[

Quite a few folks had a decent knowledge of English, but my son's new father-in-law did not.  When we were together, we used sign language to try to communicate, and shots of Vodka also helped.

Quote from: James on July 07, 2007, 10:03:41 AM
Maciek, you think that Prokofiev was more profound in the music he did for Ballet, compared with Stravinsky? Fair enough, but :o :o :o

Well, actually, the ballet category was one I did have second thoughts about (because of Rite of Spring) but only for a short moment. ;) It's all about our personal preferences, remember? ;D

To be frank, I dislike Petrushka and could never really appreciate it for some reason... I like bits of the Firebird, but only bits. Les Noces is another problem-piece - I've given up on it completely now, maybe in a couple of years...? ::) Pulcinella and Apollo are fun but I don't find them that good. ;D I'm not 100% sure if I've ever heard Agon (I certainly haven't got a recording)... So my opinion is this: Stravinsky may have reinvented the genre, even more than once, and I agree that he did present in his ballets an extraordinary variety of music but I still prefer Prokofiev's ballets (of which I'm not sure if I've ever heard: Trapeze, The Prodigal Son and The Tale of the Stone Flower - that's THREE ballets :o) :-[... 0:)

Quote from: Don on July 07, 2007, 10:06:26 AM
Quite a few folks had a decent knowledge of English, but my son's new father-in-law did not.  When we were together, we used sign language to try to communicate, and shots of Vodka also helped.

;D

Quote from: James on July 07, 2007, 12:02:40 PM
Interesting hehe...you havent heard much Prokofiev ballets but still...

Ala i Lolli, Chout, Le Pas d'acier, On the Dnieper, Romeo and Juliet, Cinderella - six out of nine is not all that bad! 0:)

Quote from: James on July 07, 2007, 12:02:40 PM
Keep listening! Maybe you'll come around to your senses and see the light one day... :D ;) 0:)

Well, it does seem to be going in that direction, I must admit... 0:) ;D

Quote from: Don on July 06, 2007, 12:38:35 PM
It was inevitable that Ginger would win - an experienced and sexy lady vs. a hayseed who wouldn't know a sexual act if she was watching it.

I sometimes wonder about the true orientation of people who prefer "experienced" and "mature" (especially women with guns) compared to people who prefer ladies who really do act like they have no masculine bone in their body.

Quote from: greg on July 07, 2007, 12:27:49 PM
I sometimes wonder about the true orientation of people who prefer "experienced" and "mature" (especially women with guns) compared to people who prefer ladies who really do act like they have no masculine bone in their body.

Off-topic, but I wonder if hypothetically someone could equally wonder whether somebody who prefers ladies who 'have no masculine bone in their body' (ie infantile) really likes mature ladies at all...  ;)

Quote from: Boris_G on July 07, 2007, 03:18:53 PM
Off-topic, but I wonder if hypothetically someone could equally wonder whether somebody who prefers ladies who 'have no masculine bone in their body' (ie infantile) really likes mature ladies at all...  ;)

I actually quite prefer ladies with a masculine bone in their body. Provided, of course, that it's mine.

Quote from: scottscheule on July 06, 2007, 08:05:49 PM
Profundity became involved after the Copland quote.  I'm not sure whose music was more profound--I'd need a slightly tighter definition and more familiarity with Proke's Piano Sonatas.

Another genre in which I think Prokofiev was arguably "more profound" than Stravinsky, overall, is the concerto.

Igor Fyodorovich's nuanced attitude towards the symphony makes that a dicey arena of comparison;  but since James mentioned the wonderful Concerto per due pianoforti, let me say that I think that the theme and variations of the second movement of Prokofiev's Second Symphony strikes me as perfectly 'comparably profound' to the variations of the Stravinsky Concerto (which, since it is a two-piano work, by the way, was not one of the pieces I had in mind when making the opening remark of comparable concerti.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 07, 2007, 04:06:07 PM
Another genre in which I think Prokofiev was arguably "more profound" than Stravinsky, overall, is the concerto.

Without even a glimmer of doubt  ........

No question: Prokofiev.

Why do we give a pass to neo-classicism but never forgive neo-romanticism. Besides, so much of Prokofiev's music is a lot more "progessive" and "modern" than the Stravinsky music.

Chout
Le Pas D'Acier
Prodigal Son
Symphony No.2
Piano Concerto No.2
Fiery Angel
Gambler
Violin Sonata No.1
Piano Sonatas Nos. 6,7,8,9
October Cantata
4 Etudes

not to mention all the "lesser modern" works that are filled with melody. Too much of the time, you see Stravinsky struggling to make interesting compositions when he doesn't have a lot of material. He's often very sure to pound out the beat when he does this (Symphony in 3 Movements, Symphony in C, Sonata) but it's kind of a cheap way to create excitement.

Quote from: Don on July 05, 2007, 01:25:03 PM
It's good to know I'm not the only one tuned in to this conspiracy.

Stravinsky was a business man. Got Balanchine to choreograph all his ballets. I hate the Stravinsky conspiracy.

Quote from: James on July 07, 2007, 10:03:41 AM
Maciek, you think that Prokofiev was more profound in the music he did for Ballet, compared with Stravinsky? Fair enough, but :o :o :o

Stravinsky more any other composer I can think of in the 20th, reinvented that genre over and over again, and it dominates his output...the bejwelled romanticism of Firebird?  the advanced musical devices in Petrushka?, the visceral hard-hitting Rite of Spring with its dissonance and asymetrical rhythms and irregular pulses? the utterly unique raw rhythmic vital Les Noces? the modernist neoclassicism of Pulcinella? the warm and luscious sounding Apollo?...and even the quirky serialism of Agon...? If you take these into account, that's an extraordinary variety, breadth, range and depth of music, invention and expression...

Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet is one of his greatest achievements no doubt, the scope and scale of the work is truly awesome, but...

Chout, Le Pas D'Acier, and Prodigal Son I find all at least as interesting as Petroushka. As for the Firebird? Come on, it's a lot better in its reduced 10 minute version.

Quote from: Boris_G on July 07, 2007, 03:18:53 PM
Off-topic, but I wonder if hypothetically someone could equally wonder whether somebody who prefers ladies who 'have no masculine bone in their body' (ie infantile) really likes mature ladies at all...  ;)

i really don't know how to interpret this....

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 08, 2007, 05:02:37 AM
Why do we give a pass to neo-classicism but never forgive neo-romanticism.

I think because neo-classicism was a creative and fresh approach to old material.  When we think of "neo-Romantics" (and Prokofiev was well before their time) the byword seems to be retreat . . . which, as has been aptly observed, is the opposite of the original Romantics, who were all about exploring new musical avenues and, where possible, shaking up the world.

"Neo-Romanticism" is a consciously reactionary stance to "new stuff" in our day, very little of it having the nerve and sinew of (for example) Sibelius, Vaughan Williams or Prokofiev.  To be sure, they all followed their own beat, in some degree of 'defiance' of the 'new currents' of their day;  but in each of these composers' case, there was a 'there' there.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 08, 2007, 05:05:04 AM
Stravinsky was a business man.

And you think that Prokofiev was not?

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 08, 2007, 05:13:22 AM
Chout, Le Pas D'Acier, and Prodigal Son I find all at least as interesting as Petroushka.

For me, in the case of Chout, not quite.  But I'll gladly pound the table for Le pas d'acier and L'enfant prodigue.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891As for the Firebird? Come on, it's a lot better in its reduced 10 minute version.

No, no, a thousand times no.  I don't want L'oiseau de feu reduced to a suite any more than I want Nutcracker or Le pas d'acier so reduced.

Quote from: greg on July 07, 2007, 12:27:49 PM
I sometimes wonder about the true orientation of people who prefer "experienced" and "mature" (especially women with guns) compared to people who prefer ladies who really do act like they have no masculine bone in their body.

You'll find the answer once you're all grown up.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 08, 2007, 10:26:04 AM
For me, in the case of Chout, not quite.  But I'll gladly pound the table for Le pas d'acier and L'enfant prodigue.

and Chout is my #1 most wanted on my Prokofiev list just because of that!.......  ;D
nah, actually it's because the clips i've heard are mindblowing, i have no idea how you can't like that

Chout is a superb ballet, funny, melodious and incredibly inventively scored. The Roshdestsvensky on Melodiya is currently available:

(http://www.mdt.co.uk/public/pictures/products/standard/MELCD1000050.jpg)

Go for it; the suite on Chandos is no substitute at all. Haven't heard the cpo, but these Melodiya recordings really are the real deal!

looks yummy

I see no reasn to chose between them. Both are favorites. Prokofiev usually are more fun, and more adrenalin-inducing (except for Le Sacre); Stravinsky more refreshing and thought-provoking. I need both.

Quote from: greg on July 08, 2007, 10:34:18 AM
and Chout is my #1 most wanted on my Prokofiev list just because of that!.......  ;D
nah, actually it's because the clips i've heard are mindblowing, i have no idea how you can't like that

I didn't say I didn't like it.  Though, to be sure, it does not blow my mind.

But I don't know that it is as compelling a whole as, Le pas d'acier, or Petrushka.

Of course, since you've only heard clips of Chout, you could not observe this  >:D

Quote from: erato on July 08, 2007, 11:08:19 AM
I see no reason to chose between them.

Nor me.

Quote from: erato on July 08, 2007, 11:08:19 AM
I see no reasn to chose between them. Both are favorites. Prokofiev usually are more fun, and more adrenalin-inducing (except for Le Sacre); Stravinsky more refreshing and thought-provoking. I need both.

That's fine, but I believe the premise of the thread was the question, who is greater?  There are only a few possibilities.  One can always call it a tie, but I suspect that's a bit of a cop out.

Ferchristssake we're talking about 2 composers who have come out at the top of the heap above thousands of lesser names. To decline a preference between the two is in no way indicative of PC egalitarianism.

Quote from: scottscheule on July 08, 2007, 05:53:44 PM
That's fine, but I believe the premise of the thread was the question, who is greater?  There are only a few possibilities.  One can always call it a tie, but I suspect that's a bit of a cop out.

Then it's a copout since I havent' the musical schooling and haven't done the research necessary to have an wellfounded opinion (which I think also applies to most members of this forum). Such an opinion wil have to take in so many factors, their short- and long term influence on others, their contribution to advances in form, structure and technique(s)- that it is beyond me.

I am well qualified to say who I like the best however; and since they satisfies such different listening needs that are equally important to me I think they are equal. I listen to Prokofiev the most however, but since his output is 3 times (or more) that of Stravinsky, that is in itself not enough of a measure.

Quote from: scottscheule on July 08, 2007, 05:53:44 PM
That's fine, but I believe the premise of the thread was the question, who is greater?  There are only a few possibilities.  One can always call it a tie, but I suspect that's a bit of a cop out.

To "break the tie" requires a number of conditions.  One, is that we all agree that there can be a question of one or the other being "greater" — and this in turn requires that we all agree what that means.  It all seems to be clear in the OP's mind, and he is sorely vexed that not all the rest of us see it with that refreshing clarity . . . but he hardly spells things out so that (for instance) I could be sure whether I agree or disagree with him.

There's been this cloud thrown up over "profundity," and it has not, alas, aided me in the question of whether Prokofiev's or Stravinsky's oeuvre could be considered "less profound."

I won't consider the refusal to land at a decision any "cop out," until the question can be spelled out with some neatness.

Until then, I am content to find both profundity, and surface brilliance, in the work of both composers;  and content to find them both giants of music, without much troubling myself over whether one os at all 'greater' than the other.

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 08, 2007, 06:14:49 PM
Ferchristssake we're talking about 2 composers who have come out at the top of the heap above thousands of lesser names. To decline a preference between the two is in no way indicative of PC egalitarianism.

Entirely to the point.

Quote from: James on July 08, 2007, 07:00:14 PM
to me it sort of is Mark, because it really avoids answering the question

James, if you want to cut up rough over people not answering the question, you have only yourself to blame for posing such a vague question, which is not anywhere near as cut-and-dried outside your head, as it seems to be inside.

Quote from: James on July 08, 2007, 07:00:14 PM
to me it sort of is Mark, because it really avoids answering the question,

"Neither" is a perfectly valid answer.

Quoteand it reeks an aura of almost...(gasp) not tolerating such a question as well

Get over it. When the question is framed in terms of "political correctness" then it shouldn't be tolerated.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 08, 2007, 05:05:04 AM
Stravinsky was a business man. Got Balanchine to choreograph all his ballets. I hate the Stravinsky conspiracy.

On the contrary, Balanchine revered Stravinsky and considered his initial association with the composer at the time of Apollo a major turning point in his creative life. Balanchine also chose to choreograph a number of Stravinsky works after the composer's death, at which point Stravinsky could hardly be accused of "getting" Balanchine to do anything.

I don't see much point in this "contest" myself. Stravinsky was probably the more original of the two, but following his early Russian period I find a number of his neo-classical works (like the Octet, Jeu de Cartes, and the Circus Polka) less satisfactory. But then there are amazing things like Oedipus, the Symphony of Psalms, Agon, and the Requiem Canticles. And if "profound" implies an ability to evoke emotions of tragedy, grief, religious exaltation, etc., Stravinsky did hit this kind of experience in the last movement of Psalms (religious feeling) and the Bedlam scene in The Rake's Progress (grief) perhaps above all.

I think Prokofiev was more gifted than Stravinsky as a lyric composer, as in the pas de deux closing Act One of Romeo and Juliet.

Prokofiev had a consistency that Stravinsky did not have. I know and own every single one (except the unpublished Op.88) of his works now, and I know about 2/3 or Stravinsky's works. Not one of those Prokofiev's works is second rate. There are a few things that I think aren't fantastic, but I've never observed such consistency in a composer. I think if you pressed me, I'd say maybe there were six Prokofiev compositions that I didn't think were real masterpieces, but probably less.

As far as originality goes, I've got to lean on the Prokofiev side again. But this is a matter of high opinion.

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 06:34:14 AM
Octet is one of his greatest pieces without a doubt, his best chamber work for sure.

Since I have expressed such "doubt," you can hardly say this point is true "for sure." Unless, of course, your real point is that your exalted perceptions are so much superior to mine, as to discount anything I say completely.

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 06:34:14 AM
Octet is one of his greatest pieces without a doubt, his best chamber work for sure...

Oh, I don't know.  Maybe the Concerto per due pianoforti is his best chamber work.  How would we try the question?

QuoteProkofiev's Romeo & Juliet is thee best from his ballet music without a doubt, in fact one of his greatest achievements period...but I dont think it comes close to what Stravinsky achieved there, or pretty much anywhere in fact

Well, stated like that, as an opinion, there's no arguing with it, of course.  Really, to compare we ought to have a Stravinsky example of a full evening's ballet;  but he didn't write any.  So with Romeo & Juliet (and The Tale of the Stone Flower) we have Prokofiev accomplishments in a category which Stravinsky disregarded (the whole emphasis of ballet in the Russian Seasons being relatively short, showy ballets).

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 06:41:47 AM
His string quartets too...the 1st destroys the 2nd...and still they as a pair dont reach the depths of others in the genre...

But, his string quartets are more profound than anything Stravinsky wrote for the medium, right?

"The 1st destroys the 2nd" is one of the most curious remarks I've ever read, viz. the Prokofiev string quartets.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2007, 06:44:42 AM
Well, stated like that, as an opinion, there's no arguing with it, of course.  Really, to compare we ought to have a Stravinsky example of a full evening's ballet;  but he didn't write any.

In fact he wrote nothing longer than about 45 minutes, with the exception of one full-length opera.

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 06:41:47 AM
I find much of Prokofiev's output very patchy and inconsistent...like the piano sonatas, concerti and symphonies, these are not uniformly great at all...neither is most the ballet stuff IMHO. His string quartets too...the 1st destroys the 2nd...and still they as a pair dont reach the depths of others in the genre...his first violin sonata is very good though, that probably his best chamber work...

If anybody besides James thinks there's a wrong note in Prokofiev's Sonatas 2,6,7,8,9, first two movements of 4 speak up. The fifth is one of the six not masterpiece works, and the 1st and 3rd are very good.

I don't think anybody shares James' opinion about the Prokofiev concertos, unless of course, they haven't heard them.

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 06:58:53 AM
mere duration doesnt really factor into it though does it? What about the music?

The duration, and how well the music carries it, are indeed part of The Music, James.

Prokofievs symphonies are uneven, his operas are uneven, I'm a fan, but come on! I canæt imagine he's the only composer in history to compose only masterpieces?

Really?

About the symphonies: the only imperfect symphonies I can think of by his are the 7th, which has a little bit of repetitiousness, and maybe the 4th a little bit, which might have a little bit of repetitiousness too. I would also say that the first movement of the 5th symphony is uneven. Other than that, no.

About the operas: the only candidates for uneveness would be perhaps Semyon Kotko, and the last act of Fiery Angel. Oh, maybe to some extent Betrothal in a Monastery might be a debatable point of unevenness. Other than that, I can't see there being anything uneven about the operas. Can you?

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 07:15:38 AM
karl, obviously..but making claims for comparative length is ridiculous...like you did in your last post...

No, James, you are mistaken.  I was not "making claims for comparative length";  I was pointing out the difficulty (on top of other difficulties) of comparing two ballets, one of which runs half an hour, the other of which runs more than two hours.

Imagine if I were to claim that Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is "greater" or "more profound than" Moby-Dick.

Oh yes. I find Semyon Kotko a distinctly lesser opera than Fiery Angel, the 3rd symphony distinctly underwhelming compared to the 6th, The Stone Flower clearly less impressive than Rome & Juliet, the 1st string quartet less inventive and interesting than the 2nd etc etc...

Are you seriously suggesting that a catalogue in excess of 100 major works isn't variable?

I'm not suggesting that it isn't variable at all. But there's only about six opus numbers among Op.1-135 that aren't all in all really good pieces of music. Perhaps you can name 6?

Semyon Kotko and Betrothal in a Monastery, by the way, are quite good pieces of music in my opinion.

p.s. Alright James, let's see if anyone shares your opinion.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2007, 07:22:48 AMImagine if I were to claim that Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is "greater" or "more profound than" Moby-Dick.

I don't see the problem with such a comparison.

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 07:28:06 AM
yeah but who cares, what about the music my friend, just because one piece is longer than the other doesnt matter at all...

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2007, 07:07:38 AM
The duration, and how well the music carries it, are indeed part of The Music, James.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 09, 2007, 07:35:14 AM
I'm not suggesting that it isn't variable at all. But there's only about six opus numbers among Op.1-135 aren't all in all really good pieces of music. Perhaps you can name 6?

Semyon Kotko and Betrothal in a Monastery, by the way, are quite good pieces of music in my opinion.

There's a difference betwen 130 pieces of good music, and 130 masterpieces. Like most composers he has his share of masterpieces, very good pieces, good pieces and less good pieces.

Hmm, interesting.

You know, I'll be quite honest with you. No amplification here.

Those Opp.1-135 contain about 15 opus numbers that are suites and extractions from previously written music. So that leaves us with about 120 opus numbers to evaluate. I'd say 90/120 are total sure-fire masterpieces, 24/120 are quite good, and 6/120 are just ok.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 09, 2007, 07:51:37 AM
Hmm, interesting.

You know, I'll be quite honest with you. No amplification here.

Those Opp.1-135 contain about 15 opus numbers that are suites and extractions from previously written music. So that leaves us with about 120 opus numbers to evaluate. I'd say 90/120 are total sure-fire masterpieces, 24/120 are quite good, and 6/120 are just ok.

Then from the standpoint of eveness of production, a composer writing all crap is more even than Prokofiev.  ;D

I'm not sure, percentagewise, that the distribution is very different for Stravinsky (with a smaller production of course), and Brahms. All three composers very high on my fave list.

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 08:03:42 AM
WHATEVER karl. I still believe, that despite comparative duration of one ballet, or work to another is truly immaterial, a non-point/issue for sure...so what if R&J is longer than Rite of Spring, or Apollo, or Agon, or Firebird, or Petrushka, or Les Noces, or Pulcinella, or Orpheus...does not matter at all.

Size only matters when you're comparing your CD collections..........................and other stuff   ;)

This is a point of opinion.

Right now, I've gone through 2/3 of the Stravinsky material, and most of this is clearly the more well known material. For one, it's quite clear that the pieces are a lot shorter and less in number. But also, it seems to be, I don't know, about 1/4-1/3 materpiece, 1/4 pretty good, 1/2 not too good. But I haven't listened to enough Stravinsky yet.

I've also just got to keep in mind that there's SO much less material by Stravinsky versus Prokofiev, particularly when you consider that a lot of Stravinsky's material was taken from other composers and never called Tchaikovsky-Stravinsky or Tchaikovsky (arr. Stravinsky) Fairy's Kiss.

No, size does matter.

I'd be less impressed by Haydn if he composed half those great string quartets or half those great symphonies.

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 08:03:42 AM
WHATEVER karl. I still believe, that despite comparative duration of one ballet, or work to another is truly immaterial, a non-point/issue for sure...so what if R&J is longer than Rite of Spring, or Apollo, or Agon, or Firebird, or Petrushka, or Les Noces, or Pulcinella, or Orpheus...does not matter at all.

It matters because there are challenges in handling large forms that may not be present in shorter works. Of course, duration by the clock is not an absolute indicator of anything: a 25-minute work like Agon is musically very "dense," whereas there are 90-minute symphonies full of filler (no names, of course, to protect the guilty). Still, I think most would agree that there is greater complexity in the opening movement of the Eroica than in any of Beethoven's piano bagatelles.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 09, 2007, 08:15:13 AM
No, size does matter.

I'd be less impressed by Haydn if he composed half those great string quartets or half those great symphonies.

Are you less impressed by Berg and Webern because their output is so small? Why should the sheer number of works matter? Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Prokofiev for that matter all composed "fewer" works than earlier composers like Bach, Mozart, and (gasp!) Handel.

I'd be very interested if you point out the masterpieces and "must hears" beside the usual canon (symphonies, ballets, concertoes, sonatas) - when you mention 90 very good works there must be some stuff I don't know even though I have him quite high on my composer list - and approx. the equal to Bartok, Shostakovich and Stravinsky on mey "early modernist" list.

In the case of both Prokofiev and Stravinsky, I find a satisfyingly admirable quality-to-quantity ratio.

In response to the above question, here's a list of real undisputed masterpieces of Prokofiev's. To emphasize the quality of the list, let me mention that Semyon Kotko, Betrothal in a Monastery, Piano Sonata No.3, The Tale of the Stone Flower, and On the Dneiper did not make it to the list.

Opp. 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 107,108, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 134.

What do you have against The Tale of the Stone Flower?  8)

Quote from: James on July 09, 2007, 09:11:34 AM
You hit the nail on the head Larry, that was my point...

But, as a point, that swung wide of any nailhead, James.

Just saying . . . .

[ BTW, I continue not to vote here. ]

For Stone Flower, some of it is inconsistent, it seems to me. Some of the musical material is a little bit recycled. But it is beautiful music, just not perfect. Here's a list of stuff you've got to hear that you've never heard:

4 Etudes, Op.2,
Five Songs without Words, Op.35,
Quintet, Op.39,
Symphony No.2, Op.40,
Four Portraits from 'The Gambler', Op.49,
Sonata for Two Violins, Op.56,
Symphonic Song, Op.57,
October Cantata, Op.74,
The Year 1941, Op.90,
March for Band, Op.99,
Piano Sonata No.9, Op.103,
Pushkin Waltzes, Op.120,
Winter Bonfire, Op.122.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 09, 2007, 09:23:06 AM
Here's a list of stuff you've got to hear that you've never heard:

4 Etudes, Op.2,
Five Songs without Words, Op.35,
Quintet, Op.39,                                  Check! - need to relisten
Symphony No.2, Op.40,                        Check! -like a lot
Four Portraits from 'The Gambler', Op.49,
Sonata for Two Violins, Op.56,              Check! -great work
Symphonic Song, Op.57,
October Cantata, Op.74,
The Year 1941, Op.90,
March for Band, Op.99,
Piano Sonata No.9, Op.103,                 Check! - the greatest sonata cycle since Beethoven (I disregard             
                                                      composers with 2-3 sonatas - and apologize to Scriabin as runner                                     
                                                      up)

Pushkin Waltzes, Op.120,
Winter Bonfire, Op.122.

I supect I have a copule of the others as well - but need to check my collection.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 09, 2007, 09:23:06 AM
For Stone Flower, some of it is inconsistent, it seems to me. Some of the musical material is a little bit recycled. But it is beautiful music, just not perfect.

Well, since you admit it's all beautiful, I won't argue about perfection.

QuoteHere's a list of stuff you've got to hear that you've never heard:

4 Etudes, Op.2,
Five Songs without Words, Op.35,
Quintet, Op.39,
Symphony No.2, Op.40,
Four Portraits from 'The Gambler', Op.49,
Sonata for Two Violins, Op.56,
Symphonic Song, Op.57,
October Cantata, Op.74,
The Year 1941, Op.90,
March for Band, Op.99,
Piano Sonata No.9, Op.103,
Pushkin Waltzes, Op.120,
Winter Bonfire, Op.122.

Understood that you mean "you" generally . . . .

The Quintet, Op.39 is not underappreciated, it is simply not known;  but it is a great little piece, and ought to be better known.

I personally have pounded the table for the Symphony No.2, Op.40 many a time before now.

You know, these works actually are almost up there on the very short list of "you've got to hear this/unknown" stuff.

Divertissment, Op.43,
Eugene Onegin, Op.71,
Sonata for Solo Violin, Op.115,
Sonata for Unaccompanied Cello (unfinished), Op.134

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on July 09, 2007, 09:23:06 AM
4 Etudes, Op.2,
Symphony No.2, Op.40,
Four Portraits from 'The Gambler', Op.49,
Sonata for Two Violins, Op.56,
Symphonic Song, Op.57,
March for Band, Op.99,
Piano Sonata No.9, Op.103,
Divertissment, Op.43
Sonata for Solo Violin, 115

These I've heard.....
9/17- so far not too bad, i guess.

In response, James, if I had to put it in order of which unheard stuff needs to be listened to in greatest necessity, this would be the order,

Opp. 40, 35, 103, 74, 49, 2, 39, 56, 71, 90, 115, 57, 99, 43, 122, 120, 134.

That's neat, staightforward and linear.

Right up James's street  8)

Perhaps you, James, can provide us with a list of unknown Stravinsky works that need to be listen to in greatest necessity (in order, perhaps)?

I don't know where my comment fits in, but there is the name Stravinsky in this topic, so I take the liberty of barging in and telling you of my afternoon with an old, very old, VHS tape I found in the back of a pile of programs I recorded off TV when PBS was still a channel worthwhile watching:

The Recreation of the original Nijinsky choreography of Stravinsky's Sacre du Printemps. The tape includes a number of fascinating interviews with the composer and his comments on this work. Does anybody here know if this video has ever been issued on a DVD?

If not, Lis, it sure ought to.

I voted for Prokofiev because his amount of ideas was incredible and it makes each of his composition at least listenable. He was profound in almost all types of music, he could compose easy-listening music for kids (Peter and the Wolf) which is still never plain or trite. On the other hand, he could write very dark and complex works such as the first violin sonata. Stravinsky had to try out different things (like 12-tone music), while Prokofiev just wrote the music which came into his mind - he did not have to think about where to get inspiration, he was inspired himself!
And do you know why I think he had not much influence? Simply because his style was so very inartificial (in a positive way) and consistent that anybody who would have had the aim to bis his follower must have had the same amount of inspiration and resourcefulness. - While it was a lot easier to adapt Stravinsky's inventions of rhythm etc.
Not that I don't like Stravinsky, but I think Prokofiev was the more musical composer, maybe the most musical of the 20th century (although there are other candidates: Shota, Bartok, Britten, etc.).

Note that all the above is just my personal view and opinion.

i pretty much agree- his music seemed to flow from himself, with no outside influence- he "danced to his own rhythm", as it is written.

This thread really surprises me.

Quote from: Guido on October 10, 2008, 03:19:34 PM
This thread really surprises me.

Yes, it is quite unrelenting. ;D

   I admire Stravinsky, but love Prokofiev. Sttravinsky is generally more interesting than moving.

  I would say that Prokoiev's music is more spontaneous and fresher in invention than much of Stravinsky. Prokofiev's music has greater range of expression ; from witty,sardonic, joyous, etc to tragic and tenderly lyrical.

   There is the witty and elegant "Classical Symphony", and the savagely dissonant 2ns symphony, which makes Stravinsky's Sacre sound like Mendelssohn. In his operas, there are the zany "Love For 3 Oranges", the weird,sinister and terrifying "Fiery Angel",  and the epic sweep of "War and Peace" .

   In his ballets, you have the glowingly lyrical "Romeo and Juliet", the bizarre and fanciful "Bufoon", and the charmingly folkloric "Stone Flower".

   Stravinsky's  post Sacre music is  often ingenious and intriguing, but it often leaves me cold, unlike Prokofiev.

   

I think Stravinsky was the better composer, but his writing career was terribly disorganized. Trying to make sense of his disjointed and seemingly random compositions it's a real challenge. Perhaps this is why he is known mainly through an handful of his works.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 11, 2008, 08:42:59 AM
I think Stravinsky was the better composer

Better in what sense? I don't care if a composer writes "academically" great music. To me that does not matter. To me the best music is moving, enjoyable to listen to. Elgar is the best to me because his music moves me the most. I haven't explored Stravinsky much. I am a Prokofiev newbie. At the moment I'd say Prokofiev's music moves me more. Stravinsky is an interesting composer but damn there is so much other music to explore. I don't know when it is Stravinsky's turn...  ::)

I have stopped thinking about who's the best and who's the second best. I prever just enjoying good music, regardless of who happened to write it.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2008, 09:12:37 AM
Better in what sense?

Better in the sense he wrote better music.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2008, 09:12:37 AM
To me the best music is moving, enjoyable to listen to

If that was all there is to it i would probably be still listening to metal and other lesser forms of expression i picked up while growing up as an ignorant teenager. I don't get how people can get through life without the belief there are real, objective standards the understanding of which ought to be attained in order to better oneself rather the simply follow the most immediate and undeveloped of impulses.

Stravinsky dissappointed me when I looked into more of his pieces.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 11, 2008, 09:36:58 AM
Better in the sense he wrote better music.

How do you define better music? Better art? Better food? The more a piece of music improves my quality of life the more I value it. I'd say that's very meaningful.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 11, 2008, 09:36:58 AMIf that was all there is to it i would probably be still listening to metal and other lesser forms of expression i picked up while growing up as an ignorant teenager. I don't get how people can get through life without the belief there are real, objective standards the understanding of which ought to be attained in order to better oneself rather the simply follow the most immediate and undeveloped of impulses.

I am not talking about "lesser forms of expression." It's good you found classical music after your teenager years but that doesn't mean you need to stop listening to metal. Today I have listened to J.S. Bach's Cantatas, King Crimson, The Prodigy, Samuel Arnold's Overtures and Ranga's Indian new age. To me The Prodigy's Voodoo People is not lesser form of expression compared to J. S. Bach's Ich habe genug, just different in an enriching way. I think Samuel Arnold was the "lesser" figure here...

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 11:08:47 AM
Stravinsky is one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century and in the history of music.

Really?

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 11:08:47 AM
He's simply indispensible. He revolutionized music and had a tremendous impact.

What did he do to revolutionize music? The Rite of Spring is said to be something totally new but I don't know exactly how (orchestration?) I'm not sure if I have even heard that work. I have one Naxos disc of Stravinsky's symphonies. Interesting nice music but not imho revolutionizing. Should I really explore Stravinsky more?

I am currently exploring Prokofiev and finding him a mighty composer of music that has feel, complexity, good orchestration and invention. Romeo and Juliet is same sort of masterpiece imho.

Quote from: Guido on October 10, 2008, 03:19:34 PM
This thread really surprises me.

Moi aussi, mon cher.

Quote from: The Six on October 11, 2008, 09:40:41 AM
Stravinsky dissappointed me when I looked into more of his pieces.

For me it was very much otherwise.  The more of his work I got to know year by year, the better I liked it.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 11:08:47 AM
Stravinsky is one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century and in the history of music. He's simply indispensible. He revolutionized music and had a tremendous impact. The history of music itself would not be the same without him. His contributions are so vital & important.

All true, though there are folks here who will directly retort, But what does the music do for me?  And it won't seem to get through to them that there are plenty of us who have a thorough musical fondness for as well as admiration of his work, that it is not the 'academicism' which they would like to pigeon-hole it as.

Quote from: JamesProkofiev wrote some great stuff but the history of music would be the same essentially without him. He doesn't belong to that small group of special composers who write masterpieces of the highest order AND have such a tremendous impact & influence on music's future. Stravinsky is one of those rare composers.

Actually, I should argue that he did have a tremendous, and an important, impact;  as did Sibelius, Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich, Prokofiev set a model example of a composer who did not chase after the various strands of the century, but who just did excellent work, relating in specific ways to traditions which he felt no need to "discard," yet in his own distinct voice.

[ By the way, I didn't vote either way. ]

Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2008, 11:52:28 AM
All true, though there are folks here who will directly retort, But what does the music do for me?  And it won't seem to get through to them that there are plenty of us who have a thorough musical fondness for as well as admiration of his work, that it is not the 'academicism' which they would like to pigeon-hole it as.

Do you buy and listen to certain music because there are plenty of people who like it or because you like it?

Stravinsky I can take or leave but I really dislike his later music. Same with Prokofiev.

Once in a long while I will pull out my recording of  Le Sacre du Printemps  and enjoy it but both are 'inconsequential' in my musical universe. 

Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2008, 12:05:47 PM
Do you buy and listen to certain music because there are plenty of people who like it or because you like it?

There is a lot of great music out there, Poju, which plenty of people like;  it's no conspiracy for a lot of people to like great music.

Your question is a false dichotomy, too;  I don't buy only music which I already know.  So the suggestion that anyone ought to buy music "because he likes it" is a bit irrational.

Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on October 11, 2008, 12:10:36 PM
Stravinsky I can take or leave but I really dislike his later music. Same with Prokofiev.

Examples of the later music of both which you "really dislike," Eric?

Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2008, 12:11:43 PM
Examples of the later music of both which you "really dislike," Eric?

Threni  first of all.

(and that "circus polka" has got to go!  Sorry...  ;D)

Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on October 11, 2008, 12:21:30 PM
Threni  first of all.

(and that "circus polka" has got to go!  Sorry...  ;D)

Eric, a single work (for the Circus Polka is but a curio, in any event) by one of the two composers about whom I asked, is no answer.  Unless of course, the answer is that you have not actually heard most of the later works of the two comnposers, and you're just trotting forth prejudice.

Of course, that happens a lot here. Why, there's one fellow dismisses Cage as a "charlatan," but hasn't actually listened to any of his music  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2008, 12:11:05 PM
There is a lot of great music out there, Poju, which plenty of people like;  it's no conspiracy for a lot of people to like great music.

Who has said anything about conspiracies? Anyway, there are more Beethoven fans than people liking Stravinsky or Prokofiev.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2008, 12:11:05 PMYour question is a false dichotomy, too;  I don't buy only music which I already know.  So the suggestion that anyone ought to buy music "because he likes it" is a bit irrational.

Fair enough, I mean music you think you will like.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2008, 12:30:54 PM
Fair enough, I mean music you think you will like.

I don't have so much disposable income to justify buying music which I do not believe I might actually like.  There are a number of factors in adjudging 'musical risk';  whether plenty of people like it, does not much factor in.

James, the influence of a composer is no argument for me. It just tells that the composer was influential on other composers, not that his music was greater.
Mozart did not have great influence, because his style was so unique and nobody could have been able to copy it. Same for Prokofiev IMO.
Few people say that Haydn was greater than Mozart, although he had a lot more influence (apart from opera).

If there were to contemporary composers now and they both wrote a piece, piece a and piece b. You would listen to both and would say that piece a by composer a was undoubtly the greater one. 30 years later we would see that all the young composers follow the steps of composer b. Would that lessen the greatness of composer a afterwards?

Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2008, 11:33:23 AM
What did he do to revolutionize music? The Rite of Spring is said to be something totally new but I don't know exactly how (orchestration?) I'm not sure if I have even heard that work.

I understand James's astonishment here;  one almost asks, Where have you been, Poju?  :D

I have not seen it, myself (having gathered a great deal of Stravinsky data from other sources), but many people have spoken highly of Michael Tilson Thomas's DVD, Keeping Score: Revolutions in Music - Stravinsky's Rite of Spring

Quote from: PojuI have one Naxos disc of Stravinsky's symphonies. Interesting nice music but not imho revolutionizing. Should I really explore Stravinsky more?

I like all the symphonies, but you are perfectly right, those are not his revolutionary scores (and no composer is obliged to maintain "perpetual revolution").  One piece which is revolutionary (in a quiet, not to say gentle, way) is the Symphonies of Wind Instruments.

And, it could always be that this is a Naxos dud, a case where the Naxos release is not a good ambassador for the music.  (Much success though they generally enjoy.)

Quote from: PojuI am currently exploring Prokofiev and finding him a mighty composer of music that has feel, complexity, good orchestration and invention. Romeo and Juliet is some sort of masterpiece imho.

You are perfectly right on all counts, there.

Quote from: rappy on October 11, 2008, 12:35:57 PM
James, the influence of a composer is no argument for me. It just tells that the composer was influential on other composers, not that his music was greater.

Mozart did not have great influence, because his style was no unique and nobody could have been able to copy it. Same for Prokofiev IMO.

Few people say that Haydn was greater than Mozart, although he had a lot more influence (apart from opera).

An important point.  And another indicator that the idea of greatness in music isn't so cut-&-dried as some of us think.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 12:30:51 PM
Yes. Really.

If you say so.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 12:30:51 PMWhere have you been? There are lots of neat books and documentaries detailing all of this. Search around, you'll find lots to fill in the gaps.

In a place where knowledge of Stravinsky is not regarded important. I'm sure there are plenty of books but I don't own any of them, in fact I own just a few books about music. Most of my books are about engineering or science. Maybe I search around for Stravinsky but at least until now I have been "busy" exploring other things/composers.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 12:30:51 PMYes, you really should explore Stravinsky in order to better understand his high historical importance and the many great things he did. He was one of the true 'great' composers. A definite pilar in 20th century music. He was one of the big musical innovators of all times...in all areas; harmony, rhythm, orchestration etc etc....not to mention the staggering stylistic diversity of his work while always retaining his own unique voice. Importantly, all of this brought together into mindblowing works.

Okay, I try. The problem is there's always so much to buy and so limited budget to use. Next month maybe?

I like Threni a lot.  There are a couple of things I have a question about, but after a few more listens, and a little reflection, maybe those questions will evaporate.

(In fact, I'll go put it on, now!)

The instrumentation is exquisite, the whole piece has a magnificent monumental stillness to it.

Although there are many 'points of reference' for my piece, maybe Threni is the single most important example for The Mousetrap.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 12:46:46 PM
And why do you think he was a greater influence on the future of music? Because he wore better suits?

I think rappy is entirely right to call into question the Progressive Model of music history, this Darwinian misapplication which would claim that any music which does not progress the art is somehow useless.

Good work is its own argument.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2008, 12:47:38 PM
In a place where knowledge of Stravinsky is not regarded important. I'm sure there are plenty of books but I don't own any of them, in fact I own just a few books about music. Most of my books are about engineering or science. Maybe I search around for Stravinsky but at least until now I have been "busy" exploring other things/composers.

That's cool, Poju;  we don't all walk in the same shoes.  And actually, that is one of the things (meseems) that folks like about GMG . . . lots of opportunity to learn about music which one did not have occasion elsewhere.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 12:52:04 PM
It's not what I say, it's more basic music history 101.

Oh there were questions I asked even back in music history 101  ;)

QuoteGood work is its own argument.

Exactly. My message in one sentence.

Is Palestrina greater than Bach? (At least his direct influence was bigger IMO, but that's   debatable I admit.)
According to you, Schönberg (or Webern) would be the greatest composer of the 20th century, while Shotakovich would be at the pretty end of the list.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2008, 12:34:44 PM
I don't have so much disposable income to justify buying music which I do not believe I might actually like.  There are a number of factors in adjudging 'musical risk';  whether plenty of people like it, does not much factor in.

Same here.  0:)

Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2008, 12:42:33 PM
I like all the symphonies, but you are perfectly right, those are not his revolutionary scores (and no composer is obliged to maintain "perpetual revolution").  One piece which is revolutionary (in a quiet, not to say gentle, way) is the Symphonies of Wind Instruments.

And, it could always be that this is a Naxos dud,

The Naxos disc is good and contains Symphonies of Wind Instruments. No wonder I haven't realised it to be revolutionary if it is quiet in nature.

Quote from: ' on October 11, 2008, 12:54:08 PM
I don't understand the reference.'

Sorry.  The Mousetrap is a piece of mine for clarinet and viola duo.  As I say, there's no one piece which is any model for my composition, but there are some things I do in The Mousetrap which, chances are very high, I first heard in Stravinsky's Threni.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2008, 01:00:22 PM
The Naxos disc is good and contains Symphonies of Wind Instruments. No wonder I haven't realised it to be revolutionary if it is quiet in nature.

Well, there is also the "yesterday's revolution is today's institution" aspect to things.  The moment-to-moment aspect of the formal unfolding of the piece, and the specific tempo ratios between sections, both proved illuminative models for a number of composers.

Well, but I'll disagree, James.  A great piece of music which does not beget influence, does not for that reason become "less great."

Such as Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet, which Poju rightly assesses as a great work.  Such as Stravinsky's Requiem Canticles (has it been influential, or has it just been written about a lot?)

Is the Requiem Canticles greater than Romeo & Juliet, because it's been written about so much more?  Is Petrushka greater than either of these, because it was obvious so much more influential than either of these later works?

I don't think we can arrive at a simple yes or no answer here.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 01:24:23 PM
"less important"

And the question remains, what does "importance" mean here?

Certainly greatness and importance are distinct matters.  And maybe Prokofiev's great ballets are more important than any of Stravinsky's late-era works.  The latter are "simply" an established maestro's highly individual application of methods of composition which at that time had become The Rage.  Where Prokofiev's great ballets re-established that tradition as vital and important.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 01:35:25 PM
Like i said earlier, it's a rare occurance that only a very small number of composer have managed to achieve with certain works in the history of music.

And to paraphrase what Mark Twain said, that's about like looking at the Eiffel Tower, and saying that that one little lick of paint at the very tip of the Tower, is the most important thing.

Cor, but if it didn't tickle me some to chance upon this earlier post . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2007, 10:13:24 AM
That's neat, staightforward and linear.

Right up James's street  8)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 11, 2008, 08:42:59 AM
I think Stravinsky was the better composer, but his writing career was terribly disorganized. Trying to make sense of his disjointed and seemingly random compositions it's a real challenge. Perhaps this is why he is known mainly through an handful of his works.

No; it seems to me more sensible and more intuitive to conclude that Stravinsky is known to musicians through a great many more than just a handful of his works;  but that he is known to the general concert-going public through a handful of works, because of programming/orchestral dynamics.

The really impressive thing (or, properly, one of the really impressive things) is that, in spite of a 'disorganized' career (life is rather disorganized, isn't it? And Stravinsky was buffeted from country to country by circumstance) there is a single, powerful voice which speaks in all the music, throughout all the various stylistic twists and turns.

Again, this is quite astonishing to read. Was the Rite of Spring important? I'm well and truly, completely and totally, consummately flabbergasted.

Well, what is it that makes a piece important? What can be of "importance" in music?

And you know, I cannot help but feel that these questions were part of the driver for such composers as Satie and Cage.  And Feldman.

Well that was addressed to 71 dB. I'm sure that you said to him words to the effect of: Where have you been, Poju?. I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence by saying why this piece is important.

Ah, ho capito.

Ek begryp jou nie, Kerampewtek, Maa fhamt aleek, Yenku arthaa aathijji.

持続的な人ってどういう意味と聞いたら、褒め言葉だよと言われました。

Quote from: The Six on October 11, 2008, 02:56:58 PM
持続的な人ってどういう意味と聞いたら、褒め言葉だよと言われました。

That one is a challenge!
I'm sure this is way off, but....... "It's said that dynamic people interpret anything as compliment?"  ???
No you have to correct me! My curiosity will kill me if you don't.


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ffzhvDpuL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Still gotta figure out how to get that gift card from my bank, so I can get this.
Hopefully, is post Le Sacre-period (well, i guess that'd be most of his life) hasn't produced too much that I've liked, so this is the only way to judge, I suppose.

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on October 11, 2008, 03:07:22 PM
That one is a challenge!
I'm sure this is way off, but....... "It's said that dynamic people interpret anything as compliment?"  ???
No you have to correct me! My curiosity will kill me if you don't.


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ffzhvDpuL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Still gotta figure out how to get that gift card from my bank, so I can get this.
Hopefully, is post Le Sacre-period (well, i guess that'd be most of his life) hasn't produced too much that I've liked, so this is the only way to judge, I suppose.

Hmm, well these are great historic recordings, though you may need more modern ones to convince you of all the pieces - Naxos have a very good series of reissues of Craft's recordings (and original recordings of the chamber/piano music). There are so many masterpieces post Le Sacre...

Quote from: Guido on October 11, 2008, 03:11:51 PM
Hmm, well these are great historic recordings, though you may need more modern ones to convince you of all the pieces - Naxos have a very good series of reissues of Craft's recordings (and original recordings of the chamber/piano music). There are so many masterpieces post Le Sacre...

That'll be awhile from now, though..... the only reason I'd get that is because of the price and quantity.  :(
Yeah, I'm sure they all aren't the best recordings- I have heard his recording of the Rite of Spring a long time ago and remember it being the worse I've ever heard.

Well, it perhaps lacks the polish of other versions, but to me there's something utterly incredible and electric in that performance. Each to their own.

Quote from: Guido on October 11, 2008, 03:22:54 PM
Well, it perhaps lacks the polish of other versions, but to me there's something utterly incredible and electric in that performance. Each to their own.

Whenever I get that set, I'll listen and post my thoughts again- on this thread or Stravinsky's. I mean, it was a few years ago and all I remember is that I didn't think it was intense or I didn't like the sound or something. But I'll see again. 8)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-XP%2B1dQgL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
I'm somewhat familiar with this recording- bought it by impulse (a rare event for me) at Borders 3 or 4 years ago.... gave it may 10 or so listens over time. I'm always impressed by everything but the Symphony in C, which does nothing but bore me each time I give it a shot. Is t considered a masterpiece? Maybe this isn't the best recording, anyways?
I'm pretty sure all this is on that set, too, so I might consider giving this one away........(after i get the set, of course)  :D

Quote from: ' on October 11, 2008, 05:24:21 PM
Like so many of the Columbia recordings, it has flaws, and since it is nearly 50 years old now, there are plenty of recordings that can offer a more impressive sonic bang than this one, but like Guido, I also still get a buzz off of this recording (amazing to think that the bassoonist, Loren Glickman,  who plays the opening notes had not played the piece before the recording). 

Yes, all of the big pieces are on the set. I would not attempt to talk you into liking the Symphony in C (and of the three pieces on that recording, I would put it third in line from being considered a masterpiece), but it is something I am always happy to hear. I like that recording okay too, and I have quite a few, and I tend to gravitate towards it when I want to hear it (and the more polished mono one with Cleveland).  I have it on good authority that this is one of the few works recorded for Columbia that you can feel assured is all Stravinsky. There are snippets of the recording session you can find on Strav documentaries, and you get to hear the two puppetmasters of the Stravinsky recordings (Rob't Craft and John McClure) trying to out alpha-male each other in the recording booth.'

Awesome.  :)
That's crazy that the bassoonist hadn't played it before the recording- i don't think i could something like that. Just walk into the recording session, look at the sheet in front of you, and play- something like that takes guts!

Quote from: Guido on October 11, 2008, 02:04:41 PM
Again, this is quite astonishing to read. Was the Rite of Spring important? I'm well and truly, completely and totally, consummately flabbergasted.

I am not asking if the work is important, I am asking why it is in order to learn. Stravinsky's music sounds very original and "weird" compared to other music of his time but since I haven't been listening to his music much I don't (yet) have a good understanding of it. Stravinsky's music is light and "cubic" but has a heavy mystical feel in the background. I just haven't had a time period in my life when this kind of music interests me enough to make me explore more. Most part of this year I have been exploring Tangerine Dream and King Crimson. They have done revolutionary and important things too. I regret buying Samuel Arnold's Overtures on Naxos. Lousy simple music with stupid Irish melodies. Who was it here that recommended that S. Arnold disc? Why didn't I buy Stravinsky instead?  :P

I really hope the Ries Piano Concerto CD turns out better.

Quote from: ' on October 11, 2008, 05:33:00 PM
Sorry, by played, I meant performed the piece. He wasn't sightreading.'

oooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh  :)

Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2008, 01:31:05 AM
I am not asking if the work is important, I am asking why it is in order to learn.

I am just amazed that anyone who claims to be at all interested in classical music and has listened to it as long as you have been, would be asking such a question. Aside from it completely changing the course of music, it's influence being felt in the work of virtually every major composer of the twentieth century, it is just a masterpiece of the absolutely highest calibre. I feel stupid even typing this.The wiki page is a good background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring

Quote from: Guido on October 11, 2008, 03:11:51 PM
....There are so many masterpieces post Le Sacre...

Word.



(though I hate saying 'word'.)    ;D

Quote from: Guido on October 11, 2008, 03:11:51 PM
. . . There are so many masterpieces post Le Sacre...

Svadebka (Les noces)
Symphonies of Wind Instruments
Symphony of Psalms
L'histoire du soldat
Oedipus Rex
Concerto per due pianoforti
Apollon musagète
Orpheus
Perséphone
Violin Concerto
Agon
Canticum sacrum
Requiem Canticles
Threni

And more, yea, more.

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on October 11, 2008, 03:07:22 PM
That one is a challenge!
I'm sure this is way off, but....... "It's said that dynamic people interpret anything as compliment?"  ???

I should have used 粘り強い instead of 持続的, as it's a better word to use in describing people. "When I asked what it means to be persistent, I was told it's a compliment."

So I'll be persistent in putting out hope that Stravinsky's music is as good as his influence is, and try some more.

To me, the Symphony of Psalms is as deep and profound a statement as has ever been expressed in music.

Quote from: The Six on October 12, 2008, 11:25:31 AM
I should have used 粘り強い instead of 持続的, as it's a better word to use in describing people. "When I asked what it means to be persistent, I was told it's a compliment."

So I'll be persistent in putting out hope that Stravinsky's music is as good as his influence is, and try some more.

Ah, I get it now! Thanks for the explanation, now I can survive.
The problem was, i forgot how the same word for listen could be the same word for ask. So I got stuck on "listen" and got confused.

Quote from: James on October 11, 2008, 12:38:03 PMYou may dislike it but some of Stravinsky's 3rd period contains some of his greatest & deepest music!

And like a true master he spent nearly 5 decades continuing to hone and develop his art right up until the very end.

Fair enough, James.

My problem with Stravinsky is that there is not much sensuousness and romanticism in most of his music... And as far as sophistication and refinement goes sorry but  Le Sacre, Agon, Les Noces, Rake's Progress and others do not 'make the cut' in my book. 

Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on October 12, 2008, 03:03:18 PM
And as far as sophistication and refinement goes sorry but  Le Sacre, Agon, Les Noces, Rake's Progress and others do not 'make the cut' in my book. 

Your book isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

James,

Until you become intimately familiar with Debussy's exquisite opera you really should not be making those kinds of statements on Stravinsky.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 12, 2008, 03:31:25 PM

Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on October 12, 2008, 03:29:29 PM
No... Only stating the obvious that  P&M  stands apart in a class of its own of sophistication, refinement and exquisite beauty. Most people will never get that.

Then it's not obvious.

I know I've already responded to this, but I think it worth emphasis - this is the fundamental non-sequitur in Eric's position: 'It is obvious that P+M is a class apart. Hardly anyone thinks so.' Take some time to think about that Eric.

As for me, however much you try to put me off P+M by banging on about it, I'm afraid you'll never manage it: I think it's a wonderfully beautiful, subtle work, and it's certainly one of my very favourite operas, FWIW. However, I don't think its 'exquisiteness' puts it in a class apart - there are any number of works equally exquisite, equally sensitive and sensuous (if these are the sorts of adjectives that ppeal to you most). Why limit yourself?

Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on October 12, 2008, 03:49:12 PM
James,

Until you become intimately familiar with Debussy's exquisite opera you really should not be making those kinds of statements on Stravinsky.

Am I allowed to make statements about Stravinsky? Because I do know P+M really well, so I think I have the qualifications you're looking for.

(I also know Stravinsky's music too, but that's not so important, of course)

Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 12, 2008, 03:53:12 PM
Then it's not obvious.


I know I've already responded to this, but I think it worth emphasis - this is the fundamental non-sequitur in Eric's position: 'It is obvious that P+M is a class apart. Hardly anyone thinks so.' Take some time to think about that Eric.

As for me, however much you try to put me off P+M by banging on about it, I'm afraid you'll never manage it: I think it's a wonderfully beautiful, subtle work, and it's certainly one of my very favourite operas, FWIW. However, I don't think its 'exquisiteness' puts it in a class apart - there are any number of works equally exquisite, equally sensitive and sensuous (if these are the sorts of adjectives that ppeal to you most). Why limit yourself?

Like Bluebeard's Castle. Listen to it Eric.

Quote from: Guido on October 12, 2008, 03:55:40 PM
Like Bluebeard's Castle. Listen to it Eric.

Excellent suggestion.

That's certainly a work comparable with P+M in many ways, yes. And an equally fine piece, too.

Of course, Eric has set us a very small target, however - his criterion for acceptance of a work as P+M's equal is that the work must be precisely as x, y and z as P+M. Which therefore means P+M and no other work. Which therefore means Eric can keep patting himself on that back, reassuring himself that, yes, he's right, there's nothing quite equal to  P+M. Problem is, in doing so, Eric forgets about a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i and all the other features one could find pleasurable in a piece of music.

So I could recommend pieces and composer to Eric - Takemitsu would be an obvious one. But Takemitsu, for all the extraordinary sensous refinement of his music, didn't write Pelleas et Melisande, and so therefore Eric can happily discard him.

Pelléas et Mélisande is indeed a lovely piece, and Eric is of course free to like it all he wants, as are we all. Threni is also a lovely piece, and Eric is free to hate that all he likes.

Problems arise when we take our likes and dislikes and make them normative. When we start from what is personal to us, our likes and dislikes, and make them somehow able to describe the quality of the works themselves. And beyond that, to make them shibboleths. That's dangerous.

And it's a danger we are none of us immune to, I fear.

I like the place I've gotten to (though I hesitate to make it the norm for everyone!), where I can enjoy Prokofiev immensely and enjoy Stravinsky immensely without worrying about who is the better composer. Of course, it's Stravinsky, but that knowledge doesn't keep me from enjoying Prokofiev, too. Or Poulenc or Ravel or Shostakovich or Pettersson or any of a thousand composers who aren't in Stravinsky's league.

After all, lesser composers are not only necessary to the development and continuation of music, they're good fun to listen to as well. I might just have to go put William Mayer's Octagon on, just to prove it again, to myself!!

Quote from: some guy on October 12, 2008, 05:03:12 PM
Pelléas et Mélisande is indeed a lovely piece, and Eric is of course free to like it all he wants, as are we all. Threni is also a lovely piece, and Eric is free to hate that all he likes.

Sure.  But hating so much music for no better reason than that it is unlike this one piece that he likes a lot, is so aesthetically primitive.  And he has no idea what a clown he makes himself by claiming aesthetic superiority over, well, anybody.

Quote from: some guy on October 12, 2008, 05:03:12 PM
I like the place I've gotten to (though I hesitate to make it the norm for everyone!), where I can enjoy Prokofiev immensely and enjoy Stravinsky immensely without worrying about who is the better composer.

What are (say) your five favorite Prokofiev works, Michael?

Quote from: Guido on October 12, 2008, 04:10:41 PM
The logic is flawless!

Logic bounces off the Ardent Pelleastre like a brick off a steam ship.

We'll never win him over that way. 8)

Quote from: karlhenning on October 12, 2008, 05:16:45 PM
Sure.  But hating so much music for no better reason than that it is unlike this one piece that he likes a lot, is so aesthetically primitive.

No question!

And five favorite Prokofiev works? Too few. I'll start a list and see how many items it turns out to be, OK?

Quintet
Piano sonata no. 7
Piano sonata no. 8
Cello sonata
Sinfonia concertante
Symphony no. 2
Symphony no. 5
Symphony no. 6
Betrothal in a Monastery
Semyon Kotko
War and Peace
Piano concerto no. 2
Piano concerto no. 5
Violin concerto no. 1
Scythian suite
Romeo and Juliet
On the Dneiper
Cantata for the 20th Anniversary of the October Revolution
Alexander Nevsky
Ivan the Terrible
Sinfonietta
Divertimento
The Year 1941 - Symphonic Suite

23's as close as I could get to 5, Karl. I hope that doesn't mean I'm no longer in the band! Anyway, 24 is the highest number, so....

Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 13, 2008, 04:10:14 AMNice editing, Eric. Future generations would wonder how I managed to quote something which hadn't yet been posted, if they were ever fool enough to read this thread.  ;D

:)

Just listen to Wagner, then. Or some Wagner clone. Debussy ain't one of those.

I'll let Luke have the last word on this subject in this thread.  Gentlemen, back to the battle between Sergei and Igor, thank you.  ;)

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on October 13, 2008, 07:01:45 AM
I'll let Luke have the last word on this subject in this thread.  Gentlemen, back to the battle between Sergei and Igor, thank you.  ;)

--Bruce

Aw, Bruce, I'm sure there's some sort of connection to be made between Eric's diversion-of-choice and the topic of the thread. I'm not sure what it is, mind you.

Quote from: some guy on October 12, 2008, 08:04:19 PM
And five favorite Prokofiev works? Too few. I'll start a list and see how many items it turns out to be, OK?

Quintet
Piano sonata no. 7
Piano sonata no. 8
Cello sonata
Sinfonia concertante
Symphony no. 2
Symphony no. 5
Symphony no. 6
Betrothal in a Monastery
Semyon Kotko
War and Peace
Piano concerto no. 2
Piano concerto no. 5
Violin concerto no. 1
Scythian suite
Romeo and Juliet
On the Dneiper
Cantata for the 20th Anniversary of the October Revolution
Alexander Nevsky
Ivan the Terrible
Sinfonietta
Divertimento
The Year 1941 - Symphonic Suite

23's as close as I could get to 5, Karl. I hope that doesn't mean I'm no longer in the band! Anyway, 24 is the highest number, so....

You've passed the audition, Michael  ;)

'Struth, there's many a piece I wonder you could omit . . . but then, it is only a list of 23 . . . .

A few of pieces on your list I don't believe I've heard yet.  Certainly not Betrothal in a Monastery;  not most of Semyon Kotko . . . excerpts which I heard, on a disc conducted by Järvi, did not impress me much favorably.  Don't think I've heard On the Dniepr at all, and if I've heard the 1941 Suite, it was but once and I need to revisit it.  The Divertimento I don't know at all!  And how could I not like a piece of such a title, by such a composer?

Ah, but that Second Symphony!

The Fifth Concerto eluded me the first I heard it (a recording of Sviatoslav Richter, IIRC) . . . but now I like it very much indeed.

The Second Violin Concerto was the first of the two I heard (we played it at my undergrad college), so it necessarily is first in my affections before the First;  though, in the same spirit as this thread, I just don't see why we could choose but one of the two.

The Cantata for the 20th Anniversary of the October Revolution was a great surprise to me!  I had been expecting a piece which it would be easy to dismiss as 'propaganda', but instead I found a masterly composer answering a public 'call' with music of intelligent craft and great power.

The Tale of the Stone Flower I enjoy every time I visit it, though (like War & Peace), I haven't yet compassed it mentally, quite.

And, when a composer such as Prokofiev has written this much music which is of such excellence, what does it matter if the music is "less important than" any music by any other composer?

So, my list of 23 24 Pieces Which One Regrets You Needed to Omit from Your List of 23:

Petya i Volk
Visions fugitives
Akhmatova Songs
Toccata, Opus 11
First Piano Concerto
Sarcasms for piano
The Ugly Duckling
The Gambler
Chout
Le pas d'acier
L'enfant prodigue
Second Violin Concerto
Cinderella
Piano Sonata No. 6
Fourth Piano Concerto
Sonata for two violins
F Minor Violin Sonata
D Major Violin Sonata
B Minor String Quartet
F Major String Quartet
Pushkin Waltzes
Winter Bonfire, Opus 122
Symphony No. 7
The Tale of the Stone Flower

Of course, between the two of us, we've both omitted the Third Concerto; which is not to say it isn't great music!

Quote from: karlhenning on October 13, 2008, 09:41:34 AM
'Struth, there's many a piece I wonder you could omit . . . but then, it is only a list of 23 . . . .

Hey, you're the one who asked for five. Five!!??!!

Quote from: karlhenning on October 13, 2008, 09:41:34 AMA few of pieces on your list I don't believe I've heard yet.  Certainly not Betrothal in a Monastery;  not most of Semyon Kotko . . . excerpts which I heard, on a disc conducted by Järvi, did not impress me much favorably.  Don't think I've heard On the Dniepr at all, and if I've heard the 1941 Suite, it was but once and I need to revisit it.  The Divertimento I don't know at all!  And how could I not like a piece of such a title, by such a composer?

Well, get crackin' then, bucko! Betrothal is for me one of those obsessive pieces, that is, like Kutavicius' Lokys and Stravinsky's Les Noces and L'histoire and Ashley's In Sara, Mencken, Christ and Beethoven there were men and women, a piece that once it's done, I can't think of anything else to listen to. And sometimes, I just put it right back on again.

Semyon Kotko is outrageous. Outrageously gorgeous, powerful, moving. You know, for kids!! This is Prokofiev at the height of his powers, I think.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 13, 2008, 09:41:34 AMAnd, when a composer such as Prokofiev has written this much music which is of such excellence, what does it matter if the music is "less important than" any music by any other composer?

No argument here.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 13, 2008, 09:41:34 AMSo, my list of 23 24 Pieces Which One Regrets You Needed to Omit from Your List of 23:

Petya i Volk
Visions fugitives
Akhmatova Songs
Toccata, Opus 11
First Piano Concerto
Sarcasms for piano
The Ugly Duckling
The Gambler
Chout
Le pas d'acier
L'enfant prodigue
Second Violin Concerto
Cinderella
Piano Sonata No. 6
Fourth Piano Concerto
Sonata for two violins
F Minor Violin Sonata
D Major Violin Sonata
B Minor String Quartet
F Major String Quartet
Pushkin Waltzes
Winter Bonfire, Opus 122
Symphony No. 7
The Tale of the Stone Flower

Well, you did ask for my favorites, after all! If I were making a list of all of Prokofiev's good pieces, most of these would obviously be on that list. And, just by the way, a lot of the items on my list, and a couple on yours, are pieces that use bits and pieces raided from Eugene Onegin, which would be one of my favorites if only there were a complete recorded version of it with all the words in Russian or at least in something other than the rhyming doggerel that Downes thought was worth using in his recording. Pfffft. So yeah. Add Eugene Onegin to my list so we can both have 24, eh? ;D

Yeah. The third piano concerto.... But that would put us over 24. Fuggidahboudit!

Quote from: some guy on October 13, 2008, 10:40:55 AM
Hey, you're the one who asked for five. Five!!??!!

How as I to know you would find the figure as outrageously paltry as do I?

Why, by asking, of course  8)

The Evgeny Onegin, Opus 71 is indeed high on my wanna hear list . . . .

And do give Semyon Kotko another go, if the Järvi recording hasn't turned you off completely.  Gergiev's recording of it is superb.  I saw the Kirov production around the time the recording was made, and found it a searing experience.  (Sorry for the small cover photo--all I could find.)

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on October 13, 2008, 10:52:01 AM
And do give Semyon Kotko another go, if the Järvi recording hasn't turned you off completely.

No, indeed, Bruce! I've learnt about the Järvi factor  ;D

My response to this is purely subjective, because to me this is a subjective question. Were I to  get to vote on this, I'd probably back Stravinsky, even though I probably listen to more Prokofiev.   One thing I find most fascinating about Stravinsky is the need he had to periodically re-invent himself.  Les Noces, for me, one of the most unique and innovative works of the century-- but rather than stick with that style, Igor kept going.   I can't say that, work for work, his stuff consistently pleases me as much as Prokofiev, that there was a constant evolution and some seismic shifts I don't see in Prokofiev's output.  When someone is constantly trying to push themselves into new areas, some of the works are not going to sound as convincing.  When I think of the jumps from the Firebird to the Soldier's Tale to Les Noces to the Symphony of Psalms to the Ebony Concerto to Agon and to the Flood, I can't help but give him the credit.

The only other 20th composer/musician, IMO  who had reinvented his or herself as much was Miles Davis-- but he had a lot more help in terms of collaborators.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 13, 2008, 09:41:34 AM
'Struth, there's many a piece I wonder you could omit . . . but then, it is only a list of 23 . . . .

A few of pieces on your list I don't believe I've heard yet.  Certainly not Betrothal in a Monastery;  not most of Semyon Kotko . . . excerpts which I heard, on a disc conducted by Järvi, did not impress me much favorably.  Don't think I've heard On the Dniepr at all, and if I've heard the 1941 Suite, it was but once and I need to revisit it.  The Divertimento I don't know at all!  And how could I not like a piece of such a title, by such a composer?

Ah, but that Second Symphony!

The Fifth Concerto eluded me the first I heard it (a recording of Sviatoslav Richter, IIRC) . . . but now I like it very much indeed.

The Second Violin Concerto was the first of the two I heard (we played it at my undergrad college), so it necessarily is first in my affections before the First;  though, in the same spirit as this thread, I just don't see why we could choose but one of the two.

The Cantata for the 20th Anniversary of the October Revolution was a great surprise to me!  I had been expecting a piece which it would be easy to dismiss as 'propaganda', but instead I found a masterly composer answering a public 'call' with music of intelligent craft and great power.

The Tale of the Stone Flower I enjoy every time I visit it, though (like War & Peace), I haven't yet compassed it mentally, quite.

And, when a composer such as Prokofiev has written this much music which is of such excellence, what does it matter if the music is "less important than" any music by any other composer?

So, my list of 23 24 Pieces Which One Regrets You Needed to Omit from Your List of 23:

Petya i Volk
Visions fugitives
Akhmatova Songs
Toccata, Opus 11
First Piano Concerto
Sarcasms for piano
The Ugly Duckling
The Gambler
Chout
Le pas d'acier
L'enfant prodigue
Second Violin Concerto
Cinderella
Piano Sonata No. 6
Fourth Piano Concerto
Sonata for two violins
F Minor Violin Sonata
D Major Violin Sonata
B Minor String Quartet
F Major String Quartet
Pushkin Waltzes
Winter Bonfire, Opus 122
Symphony No. 7
The Tale of the Stone Flower

You haven't heard the Divertimento?

then get this disc:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511rPovQieL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
It also has the Symphonic Song (which, after many listens, I've decided isn't that good), a work that has only been recorded once on (this) CD. And if you haven't herad the orchestrated version of the Andante from the 4th Sonata, you're really missing out!
(i have a strong feeling you'd like the Divertimento, too, btw)

Quote from: ' on October 13, 2008, 01:48:09 PM
(You know what I mean.)

Very titanically.

Quote from: ' on October 13, 2008, 01:48:09 PMCan it be nearly 35 years since I bought that Cramps lp -- 1975?

Probably! I didn't get mine until the late nineties (arrested development, probably), but I enjoyed it thoroughly, and have a CD burn of it and the commercial CD as well.

Quote from: ' on October 13, 2008, 01:48:09 PMBonus: Only recently did I learn the Wolgamot poem ultimately came to Ashley through a second-hand bookstore in the small town in Illinois where I was born and lived in the '50s.

How cool is that?

I hope you like the Kutavicius. I'm days away from flying to Vilnius for the Gaida festival, where they've promised us a new piece by him. Should be good times, regardless.

Anyway...

Karl,

I'd go along with the others in gently urging you not to give up on either Betrothal in a Monastery or Semyon Kotko. There are rewards galore in these scores and it might simply be Järvi that's holding back enjoyment for you. Or not, but I do feel there's something to be had for the dedicated Prokofiev fan in these works.

The complete recordings with Gergiev at the helm (on Philips) make a good case for this music.

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on October 13, 2008, 01:15:20 PM
You haven't heard the Divertimento?

then get this disc:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511rPovQieL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
It also has the Symphonic Song (which, after many listens, I've decided isn't that good), a work that has only been recorded once on (this) CD. And if you haven't herad the orchestrated version of the Andante from the 4th Sonata, you're really missing out!
(i have a strong feeling you'd like the Divertimento, too, btw)

I'd give a thumbs up to this disc, too. I think it's one of Jarvi's better efforts in Prokofiev and three of the four works on it are barely ever recorded.

(I've not listened to the Enfant on this disc in a while, but I remember it being unexpectedly good.)

Quote from: edward on October 14, 2008, 11:04:16 AM
I'd give a thumbs up to this disc, too. I think it's one of Jarvi's better efforts in Prokofiev and three of the four works on it are barely ever recorded.

(I've not listened to the Enfant on this disc in a while, but I remember it being unexpectedly good.)

Thanks, Greg & Edward.  So much of the Järvi juggernaut whose destination was the Prokofiev Centenary, I remember being so disappointingly throwaway . . . but the chap does have talent, and the best of that effort must be decent.  (I just gave up serving as the guinea pig to search them out ; )

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on October 13, 2008, 01:15:20 PM
get this disc:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511rPovQieL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
It also has the Symphonic Song (which, after many listens, I've decided isn't that good), a work that has only been recorded once on (this) CD.

Alas, it isn't that good a performance - it sounds pretty convincingly to my ears as if the orchestra is sight reading the music. I'm sure another conductor can make a more compelling case for it. But I agree, on the other hand, that the Prodigal Son gets a pretty decent performance.

Listened to Agon twice last night;  love it!

I'm going to try to go through their major works after having really studied all of them in detail recently. I just can't see why anyone would think that Stravinsky contributed more great works. I've put an X next the pieces that I think are objectively the stronger pieces.

Second Piano Concerto   Rite of Spring X
Chout                          Firebird X
Fiery Angel X                Petrushka
War Sonatas X              Persephone
Cinderella X                 Nightengale
Symphony No. 2           Symphony in 3 Movements X
War and Peace X          Cantata
Quintet X                    Concerto in D
Romeo and Juliet X       Symphony of Psalms
Sarcasms, Visions Fugitives X Symphony in C
Le Pas d'Acier X            Octet
On the Dnieper             Orpheus X
Classical Symphony X    Capriccio for piano and Orchestra
Third Piano Concerto X   Concerto for 2 pianos
Piano Sonata No. 2 X   Serenade
Sinfonietta X              Suites for Orchestra
Prodigal Son X            Septet
Alexander Nevsky       Agon X
Sonatinas X               Sonata
Fifth Symphony X       Concerto for piano, wind instruments
October Cantata X      Oedipus Rex
First Violin Concerto X  Scherzo fantastique
First Violin Sonata       Les Noces X
Peter and the Wolf X   Ode
Love for Three Oranges X Rake's Progress
Divertissment, Choses en Sol X Sonata for 2 pianos
Sixth Symphony X        Renard
Lieutenant Kije X        Mavra
Scythian Suite           Mass X
Sonata for 2 violins X Duo Concertante
Piano Sonata No. 9 X  Ebony Concerto
Fifth Piano Concerto X Symphony of Wind Instruments
Cinq Melodies X        Four Norweigian Moods
Tocatta X                Circus Polka
Ivan the Terrible X    Dumbarton Oaks
First Piano Concerto   Soldier's Tale X
Second String Quartet Violin Concerto X
Symphonic Song X     Danses Concertates
Thoughts X               Three Pieces for String Quartet

Does this seem unfair to anyone?

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 12, 2009, 10:46:38 AM
Does this seem unfair to anyone?

I will definitely add a X to Prokofiev's Second Piano Concerto and to his Alexander Nevsky cantata ...

Many Stravinsky works on your list which are stronger than you reckon them, as well.  (Fair disclosure: I'm already on record as refusing to have to choose between these two great composers.)

I think there's some odd comparisons there, but...
i've noticed some of the very minor Stravinsky works I've listened to are pretty much horrible... can't say the same for any Prokofiev I've ever heard, minus maybe 3 or so that just make me feel indifferent.

Quote from: Bahamut on April 12, 2009, 04:34:31 PM
I think there's some odd comparisons there, but...
i've noticed some of the very minor Stravinsky works I've listened to are pretty much horrible... can't say the same for any Prokofiev I've ever heard, minus maybe 3 or so that just make me feel indifferent.

Question . . . (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,167.msg297999.html#msg297999)

Well, even though I think the Piano Concerto No. 2, Op.16 is Prokofiev's best work, I'll concede that Rite of Spring is stronger.

I have the utmost respect for Persephone, and I think it's one of Stravinsky's best works. That's why I've put it in the same league as the War Sonatas.

I might say the same for the Nightengale. A truly beautiful work, though pundits might call it less "modern" than the Gambler.

As some of you have said as well, I have a lot of respect for Agon. That's why I marked it as a stronger work than even Alexander Nevsky, Op.78, but it's a tight horse race here.

I do not, however, have a lot of respect for the Rake's Progress. It doesn't have distinctive Stravinsky rhythm to say nothing of melody.

I'm not particularly impressed by Symphony of Wind Instruments vis a vis its reputation. There are orchestral touches that bring me back to Rite of Spring, but it's an atmospheric piece more than a substantive one.

On the Dnieper, Op.51 and Orpheus are close matchups. But I gave the edge to Orpheus.

Another close matchup is the Symphony No.1 "Classical," Op.25 and the Capriccio for piano and orchestra.

On another note, I can't put Pulcinella and Fairy's Kiss up there for Stravinsky works. Pulcinella borrows from 21 different baroque pieces because there's 21 movements. Similarly, Fairy's Kiss quotes from almost two dozen different Tchaikovsky pieces. And most of these translations are literal. They cross the line into the arrangement category.

As for other pieces that didn't get worked in here . . .

On the Prokofiev side, there's the Four Etudes, Op.2; Overture on Hebrew Themes, Op.34; March, Op.99; Four Pieces, Op.4; Betrothal in a Monastery, Op.86; Music for Children, Op.65, and works like the Sinfonia Concertante, Op.125; Violin Concerto No.2, Op.63 [I don't have a lot of respect for this piece]; Seven, They are Seven [Not a great work, and more atmospheric than substantive, and akin to Stravinsky's Star-Face], and the lieder.

On the Stravinsky side, there's Requiem Canticles [I just don't think that highly of this work despite its reputation]; Threni [Same]; Abraham and Isaac [I'm not enamored of this work]; A Sermon, A Narrative, and a Prayer [I'm not crazy about this]; The Flood [Does anyone really like this work?]; Scenes de Ballet [Lovely short piece with rhythmic interest and a nice "out west" melody]; and the lieder.

I wonder which matchups you think are too generous to Prokofiev, Karl?

Goodness, those were "match-ups"?  Whatever for?

This whole blog is so totally subjective that I took it to its extreme. I looked at the subjective quality on a piece by pieces basis.

On the other hand, this doesn't stop the All Music Guide (AMG), the Columbia Encyclopedia of Music; Anthony Tommasini of the New York Times; and a lot of other sources from calling Stravinsky the "greatest composer of the 20th century."

The trouble is that Stravinsky is the American hometown hero, and the cold war decimated Prokofiev's reputation here in the states.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 12, 2009, 05:49:38 PM
This whole blog is so totally subjective that I took it to its extreme. I looked at the subjective quality on a piece by pieces basis.

Okay.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891On the other hand, this doesn't stop the All Music Guide (AMG), the Columbia Encyclopedia of Music; Anthony Tommasini of the New York Times; and a lot of other sources from calling Stravinsky the "greatest composer of the 20th century."

Well, I see neither the possibility nor the need to designate a single greatest composer of the 20th century.  In defense of the above, though, there is a case to be made for Stravinsky.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891The trouble is that Stravinsky is the American hometown hero, and the cold war decimated Prokofiev's reputation here in the states.

Both parts of that sentence strike me as simplifications.  And the truth of the two composers is so much more interesting.

An oversimplification in what sense? Do you deny (1) that Stravinsky is more respected in the US than Prokofiev, and that (2) Prokofiev is more respected in Russia than Stravinsky? Are you suggesting that geography doesn't play a major role in these tastes? Prokofiev biographer Harlow Robinson has often posed this issue.

During the cold war, there were many government officials in the US with full-time jobs to devalue Soviet realist art, and there were certainly enough Soviet counterparts in Russia.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 12, 2009, 06:07:56 PM
An oversimplification in what sense?

In the sense of reducing the matter to a simplicity which does not do justice to either artist.

In notes to a Boston Symphony concert last month, Harlow Robinson wrote:

Quote from: Harlow RobinsonThe Second Concerto [for violin] achieved an immediate and lasting success with both critics and audience . . . It remains one of the most frequently performed and recorded of all modern violin concerti.

At the end of Robinson's notes, there is the customary info on BSO history with the piece:

QuoteTHE BOSTON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA gave the first American performances of Prokofiev's Violin Concerto № 2 on December 17 and 18, 1937, with Jascha Heifetz as soloist under the direction of Serge Koussevitzky.  Subsequent BSO performances have featured Heifetz (with Richard Burgin conducting);  Zino Francescatti, Isaac Stern, and Joseph Silverstein (all with Charles Munch);  Masuko Ushioda and Itzhak Perlman (both with Erich Leinsdorf);  Peter Zazofsky (Seiji Ozawa);  Frank Peter Zimmermann (Yuri Temirkanov);  Tamara Smirnova (Carl St. Clair);  Joshua Bell (Charles Dutoit);  Midori (Mariss Jansons);  Kyung-Wha Chung (the most recent subscription performances, under James DePriest in January 2000), and Gil Shaham (the most recent Tanglewood performance, with John Williams conducting on July 8, 2000).

Chances are that the Prokofiev Violin Concerti have been performed here at Symphony Hall with much greater frequency than the Stravinsky Violin Concerto.  I don't see that as 'less respect' for Prokofiev.  Obviously, too, the Boston Symphony commissioned works from both composers.

According the the American Symphony Orchestra League, Prokofiev's works (for orchestra) are performed with more frequency in America than Stravinsky's.

Generally, however, one in three or four musical encyclopedias, dictionaries, or web resources speak in superlatives about Stravinsky in the 20th century.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 07:11:49 AM
According the the American Symphony Orchestra League, Prokofiev's works (for orchestra) are performed with more frequency in America than Stravinsky's.

Generally, however, one in three or four musical encyclopedias, dictionaries, or web resources speak in superlatives about Stravinsky in the 20th century.

Yes.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 12, 2009, 05:58:29 PM

In defense of the above, though, there is a case to be made for Stravinsky.

I think we would be curious to hear you defend this.

Prokofiev1891, what are some of your other classical music interests outside of comparing 'Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky'?

Just curious, as you seem really obsessed about this issue?

That's a good question. I'm a huge enthusiast of Prokofiev's works. But that doesn't stop me from appreciating Stravinsky, Janacek, Schumann, Schubert, Haydn, Mozart, Bach, or any other range of composers. Schubert, again, is another example of a composer who didn't have the same amount of influence on a younger generation of composers as some of his contemporaries but who nevertheless is an incredible composer.

What about you, "Mr. Shostakovich?"

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 08:35:44 AM
That's a good question. I'm a huge enthusiast of Prokofiev's works. But that doesn't stop me from appreciating Stravinsky, Janacek, Schumann, Schubert, Haydn, Mozart, Bach, or any other range of composers. Schubert, again, is another example of a composer who didn't have the same amount of influence on a younger generation of composers as some of his contemporaries but who nevertheless is an incredible composer.

What about you, "Mr. Shostakovich?"

I agree there.  You mention Janacek, and he is one composer I would like to explore more, especially in the operatic area.  I am a growing fan of Shostakovich, but also of Stravinsky and Prokofiev.  I haven't nearly explored them enough as of yet, but am starting to.

I did say "Mr. Shostakovich" in jest.  Those three Russian/Soviet composers are remarkable, and to chose one at the expense of the other would be a real shame.  I'm happy we don't have to.  :)

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 13, 2009, 10:27:55 AM
I did say "Mr. Shostakovich" in jest.  Those three Russian/Soviet composers are remarkable, and to chose one at the expense of the other would be a real shame.  I'm happy we don't have to.  :)

Hear, hear.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 08:01:21 AM
I think we would be curious to hear you defend this.

I wouldn't make the case convincingly, because (what I must have said some four or five times in our multi-thread exchange) I don't believe we can designate (nor do I see any point in designating) a single Greatest Composer of the 20th Century.

In any event, I am by nature disinclined to re-invent the wheel;  and there is general & enlightened consensus which almost unfailingly mentions Igor Fyodorovich in a short list of The 20th Century's Best Composers.  Make the list a little longer, and Sergei Sergeyevich is always in there, too.

If your part in the discussion had been a bit more rational, we should (simply) be at large agreement that Prokofiev is to some extent unjustly (not sure what the right word would be . . . slighted? neglected? maybe just overlooked).  Nor is it any good claiming that this is at all cold-war-political in nature (which undermines your part of the discussion, as the easy counterclaim is that, asserting Prokofiev as "The 20th Century's Best" is just mid-century Moscow boilerplate).  But running down Stravinsky neither 'makes' your claim, nor flatters your own musical acumen.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 08:35:44 AM

Schubert, again, is another example of a composer who didn't have the same amount of influence on a younger generation of composers as some of his contemporaries but who nevertheless is an incredible composer.

Not to derail the topic, but let me quibble a bit here: Schubert's influence on Brahms, Bruckner and then Mahler can be argued to be very influential, as profound as Wagner's for the latter two.  I can agree that Schubert is not Wagner in breadth of influence on minor-league composers, but the composers whom Schubert did influence are at the top.

Dick Wagner could have benefited from a few dishes of rainbow Schubert!   0:) 

Quote from: Cato on April 13, 2009, 11:53:27 AM
Not to derail the topic, but let me quibble a bit here: Schubert's influence on Brahms, Bruckner and then Mahler can be argued to be very influential, as profound as Wagner's for the latter two.  I can agree that Schubert is not Wagner in breadth of influence on minor-league composers, but the composers whom Schubert did influence are at the top.

Quite right. Further, I should add that judging a composer on their degree of influence presupposes that the influence had a "positive" effect. Influence is secondary to what it is that the composer did that led to that influence, and then there are certain kinds of composition that are easier to replicate smoothly and certain kinds of composition that are inimitable.

Similarly, just as Stravinsky had melodies, Prokofiev had influence, and nothing is so clear cut. Nevertheless, you (Karl) and I have a difference of opinion in that I don't think that Stravinsky is higher up on a shortlist of great 20th century composers than Prokofiev, and I think geography has an impact on a composer's reputation in a particular country.

I wonder if the countries east of the iron curtain were considered part of your "enlightened" consensus.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 12:54:00 PM
Quite right. Further, I should add that judging a composer on their degree of influence presupposes that the influence had a "positive" effect.

Now you're just spinning verbiage.  Of course Stravinsky's influence was positive, and encompassed (among many other composers) Prokofiev.

Of course in your mind, but who knows the influences certain composers might have absorbed had they not come into contact with others.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 12:54:00 PM
Quite right. Further, I should add that judging a composer on their degree of influence presupposes that the influence had a "positive" effect. Influence is secondary to what it is that the composer did that led to that influence, and then there are certain kinds of composition that are easier to replicate smoothly and certain kinds of composition that are inimitable.

Similarly, just as Stravinsky had melodies, Prokofiev had influence, and nothing is so clear cut. Nevertheless, you (Karl) and I have a difference of opinion in that I don't think that Stravinsky is higher up on a shortlist of great 20th century composers than Prokofiev, and I think geography has an impact on a composer's reputation in a particular country.

I wonder if the countries east of the iron curtain were considered part of your "enlightened" consensus.

(My emphasis above)

Geography is indeed involved, but not in biasing people against Prokofiev or Shostakovich.  It is an old debate as to what kind of music these two would have composed, if they had not lived under the strictures of Stalin and Socialist Realism.

Would Prokofiev have followed the path of the Second and Third Symphonies/The Flaming Angel and would Shostakovich have followed the path of Lady Macbeth of Mtensk?

In either case, it is irrelevant. Stravinsky is there - in some cases - first ( compare e.g. Le Sacre to Prokofiev's later response Ala et Lolly/The Scythian Suite ) or better  (the Capriccio and the Concerto for Piano and Winds vs. Piano Concerto #5.

Prokofiev 1891 wrote:

QuoteInfluence is secondary to what it is that the composer did that led to that influence, and then there are certain kinds of composition that are easier to replicate smoothly and certain kinds of composition that are inimitable.

I think many would agree that the reason why Stravinsky is given a push higher than Prokofiev is in your statement's last few words.

QuoteOf course in your mind, but who knows the influences certain composers might have absorbed had they not come into contact with others.

Irrelevant again, since nothing can be proven about such a statement.  "Who knows" indeed!

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 12:54:00 PM
I wonder if the countries east of the iron curtain were considered part of your "enlightened" consensus.

Well, considering (a) the centralized control of musical programming and (b) the cultural bullhorn in Moscow, the first answer to your question is that few people living east of the Iron Curtain were in a position to judge, musically, for themselves.

The refined answer is, yes, enlightened people east of the Iron Curtain have indeed been part of the consensus admiring Stravinsky's contributions.  Petrushka was an early, seminal influence upon the young Shostakovich.  And the Symphony of Psalms made such a profound impression upon him as an adult, that Shostakovich prepared his own four-hands arrangement of the piece, which he played with his students.

And one of the recordings I have of Agon, is a spirited interpretation conducted by Mravinsky.

You see, if you pry your mind even just a little open, you might see that even the few facts that you bring to the table do not quite mean what you fancy them to.

And someday you must tell us all just how you discovered that Artistic Truth, curiously, really does align with the aesthetics of the Stalin cultural crackdown.

Dear Cato,

I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're saying here. You highlighted my "last works" that "certain kinds of compositions are inimitable." And you mentioned that "I think many would agree that the reason why Stravinsky is given a push higher than Prokofiev is in your statement's last few words."

But what are you saying? (1) Are you saying that the reason Stravinsky is considered more influential vis a vis Prokofiev simply because Prokofiev's compositions are less imitable? (2) Or are you saying something else?

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 05:36:12 PM
Dear Cato,

I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're saying here. You highlighted my "last works" that "certain kinds of compositions are inimitable." And you mentioned that "I think many would agree that the reason why Stravinsky is given a push higher than Prokofiev is in your statement's last few words."

But what are you saying? (1) Are you saying that the reason Stravinsky is considered more influential vis a vis Prokofiev simply because Prokofiev's compositions are less imitable? (2) Or are you saying something else?

1. Yes
2. No

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 13, 2009, 05:30:59 PM
Well, considering (a) the centralized control of musical programming and (b) the cultural bullhorn in Moscow, the first answer to your question is that few people living east of the Iron Curtain were in a position to judge, musically, for themselves.

The refined answer is, yes, enlightened people east of the Iron Curtain have indeed been part of the consensus admiring Stravinsky's contributions.  Petrushka was an early, seminal influence upon the young Shostakovich.  And the Symphony of Psalms made such a profound impression upon him as an adult, that Shostakovich prepared his own four-hands arrangement of the piece, which he played with his students.

And one of the recordings I have of Agon, is a spirited interpretation conducted by Mravinsky.

You see, if you pry your mind even just a little open, you might see that even the few facts that you bring to the table do not quite mean what you fancy them to.

And someday you must tell us all just how you discovered that Artistic Truth, curiously, really does align with the aesthetics of the Stalin cultural crackdown.

This is a totally suicide argument. Are you really suggesting that among the music-lovers in the USSR, they generally revere Stravinsky more than Prokofiev? How desperate can you possibly be?

As everyone here knows, Prokofiev and Shostakovich are more revered in the USSR than Stravinsky. Take a look at Russian encyclopedias, musical dictionaries, and concert notes. The argument you're proposing is just silly. But maybe Sviatoslav Richter, Mstislav Rostropovich, Neeme Jarvi, Gennady Rozhdestvensky, and Yuri Temirkanov eventually came to their sense and realized "My God, Karl Henning's right. And to think all this time we'd been recording Prokofiev."

Surprise, surprise. Mravinsky made more recordings of Shostakovich than of Stravinsky. And Mstislav Rostropovich made more recordings of Prokofiev and Shostakovich than Stravinsky.

You've gotta get yourself to a sanitarium if you think Prokofiev and Shostakovich are less revered in the USSR than Stravinsky.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 13, 2009, 06:05:38 PM
As everyone here knows, Prokofiev and Shostakovich are more revered in the USSR than Stravinsky. Take a look at Russian encyclopedias, musical dictionaries, and concert notes.

I fail to see what Soviet "encyclopedias, musical dictionaries, and concert notes" have to do with anything. WITHOUT QUESTION these publications would've trumpeted SOVIET composers over western composers. What else would you expect in such a cultural climate? 

But among musicians it was a different story. Since you brought up Sviatoslav Richter, here's what he had to say about each of Stravinsky's 'big three' ballets: "Magnificent music". And about Petrushka specifically: "[it] is so clearly Russian".

Well, I must say, I don't find this difficult at all. They're both very nice.

If greatness means anything, Stravinsky is clearly greater. But as I said way back on page two or something, "so what?" Doesn't keep Prokofiev from being one of my more perennial favorites. (I mostly listen to electroacoustic and live electronics nowadays, with a healthy dose of turntablism--Marclay, Yoshihide, Tetreault, Ng, Busratch, and so forth. The people of the past that continue to satisfy the most are Berlioz, Prokofiev, Bartók and Stravinsky.)*

*No, wait! What about Nielsen and Janáček and Krenek and Cage and Ferrari and Bruckner and Mahler and Beethoven and Monteverdi and Vivaldi and Bach and Saint-Saens and Dvořák and Brahms and and and and and and. There, you see. Prolly Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky is just silly. There's no "vs." about it.

N.B., "greatness" probably means nothing.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891You've gotta get yourself to a sanitarium if you think Prokofiev and Shostakovich are less revered in the USSR than Stravinsky.

You've gotta do a better job of reading what the other fellow actually writes.  When you're equal to that modest intellectual feat, we'll talk.

And: psst!  No longer use the present tense with USSR.  It no longer exists.

(No charge for these services.)

Quote from: some guy on April 13, 2009, 10:00:56 PM
(. . . The people of the past that continue to satisfy the most are Berlioz, Prokofiev, Bartók and Stravinsky.)*

A great short list, Michael (though the asterisk is well-advised, too)  8)

This thread reminds me of the recent Brahms symphonies discussion we had in which people came to realise that the criteria for "greatest" and "favourite" can be different.

A poll was made asking which of Brahms' symphonies was our favourite. The results were more or less a tie between 3 and 4. Then another was made asking which we thought was the greatest (mentioning the slightly distinction), and the 4th won by a landslide.

I have no problem considering Stravinsky greater due to his influence as well as achivements, but greatness doesn't decide my playlists, and from what little of Prokofiev I have heard I prefer him by a nose at the moment (which may become greater once I gain more exposure to his music).

This thread is one of the most futile and pointless threads in a long time!

I must hear some more Prokofiev...

Quote from: Lethe on April 14, 2009, 03:12:43 AM
This thread reminds me of the recent Brahms symphonies discussion we had in which people came to realise that the criteria for "greatest" and "favourite" can be different.

Aye, a lot of the ideas remain much the same, and find a variety of application.

One rather obvious point of comparison (though, to repeat, it really doesn't 'fix' any question of 'greatness') is that Dyagilev worked with both composers.  Don't know that we could quite say that the impresario thought Stravinsky the 'greater' of the two, but it seems that Dyagilev made himself freer to advise Prokofiev on changes to his music, than he did the elder composer.

But then, (a) Stravinsky was a cousin of Dyagilev's; (b) Stravinsky 'got there first', and was a known quantity as a collaborator already when Prokofiev arrived;  and (c) regardless of questions of the music itself, Prokofiev's character was rather rougher to get on with.

I have a bit of a hard time with Prokofiev's string concertos because they are just rammed so full of ideas, so many episodes, so many tunes, that I find it hard to keep track of the whole. The Symphony Concerto is I think the 'biggest' concerto for the cello, even if it isn't the longest.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 14, 2009, 02:18:55 AM
You've gotta do a better job of reading what the other fellow actually writes.  When you're equal to that modest intellectual feat, we'll talk.

And: psst!  No longer use the present tense with USSR.  It no longer exists.

(No charge for these services.)

The only thing more absurd than James' initial positing of this topic is Karl's stalwart denial that he doesn't have any opinion.

Now we all know that it's pointlessly subjective to determine whether Prokofiev or Stravinsky is more revered in the US or Russia at present. But it's my totally subjective impression that even in the free-state that Russia has been in since 1991, more Russians speak of Prokofiev and Shostakovich in superlatives than Stravinsky.

But then there are exceptions in each case. There are some people in America who speak of Prokofiev or Shostakovich in superlatives, and there are some people in Russia who speak of Stravinsky the same way.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 14, 2009, 05:04:06 AM
One rather obvious point of comparison (though, to repeat, it really doesn't 'fix' any question of 'greatness') is that Dyagilev worked with both composers.  Don't know that we could quite say that the impresario thought Stravinsky the 'greater' of the two, but it seems that Dyagilev made himself freer to advise Prokofiev on changes to his music, than he did the elder composer.

But then, (a) Stravinsky was a cousin of Dyagilev's; (b) Stravinsky 'got there first', and was a known quantity as a collaborator already when Prokofiev arrived;  and (c) regardless of questions of the music itself, Prokofiev's character was rather rougher to get on with.

I agree with you on this point. It's really too bad that Diagilev and Prokofiev didn't hit it off better. And the same with Balanchine and Prokofiev.

The biggest difference between us here, it seems, is that you do think that what we call greatness is a separate quality from taste, while I think what we call greatest is very linked to taste. Both terms, "greatness" and "taste," are totally subjective and intrinsically linked to any individual. Karls, Lethes, and some guy consider Stravinsky to be "greater" than Prokofiev. While on this board, 18/28 pollsters voted for Prokofiev and not Stravinsky. It's okay, it doesn't mean anything.

To some extent, I think these conversations will eventually die off. When we look at an encyclopedic entry on Tchaikovsky, we never see some sort of crass absurdity at the end (and he was almost as good as Brahms!). Well, I don't know.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 13, 2009, 11:39:24 AM
there is general & enlightened consensus which almost unfailingly mentions Igor Fyodorovich in a short list of The 20th Century's Best Composers.

What I really object to is Karl's suggestion that anyone who thinks less of Stravinsky than Prokofiev is unenlightened. It's a very haughty and condescending way of looking at things, and I also disagree with it.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 14, 2009, 07:25:56 AM
To some extent, I think these conversations will eventually die off. When we look at an encyclopedic entry on Tchaikovsky, we never see some sort of crass absurdity at the end (and he was almost as good as Brahms!). Well, I don't know.

A key problem is that the 20th century has far more competition than Romantic or Classical eras, where the amount of truly inspired composers could be counted on a few hands for each. The lesser ones were sometimes very fine, but simply a step below. Even if Prokofiev would somehow be considered "greatest" of the 20th century Russians, he then faces a whole new set of rivals such as Bartók, Ravel and Schoenberg.

I feel that this is why nobody can ever decide on a near-consensus list of "greats" like in the previous centuries....

And of course, Sara, having a rich talent pool is a great 'problem' to have!

Quote from: Guido on April 14, 2009, 03:21:49 AM
This thread is one of the most futile and pointless threads in a long time!

I must hear some more Prokofiev...

Totally...

Why don't we sum it up like this. . . .

Objectively and according to both enlightened and unenlightened tastes, Prokofiev isn't a more profound musical creator than Stravinsky, and Stravinsky isn't a more profound musical creator than Prokofiev. All musical dictionaries, guides, journalists, and bloggers who try to suggest some sort of absolute statement about the greatest of one composer over another are absurd.

How does this sound as a way to close this thread?

Sounds good to me.

I don't think it improves materially on my initial reply:

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 05, 2007, 10:25:06 AM
Banana, or, as either Sergei Sergeyevich or Igor Fyodorovich would say, banan!

Dear James,

I hope by this you do not mean to incite and start this thread all over again.

Frankly, who cares what I think. But I think that Prokofiev's most "profound work" to use a meaningless phrase is less "profound" than Stravinsky's "most profound" work. That is, I think Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No.2, Op. 16 is less profound than Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring." But I do think that Prokofiev contributed more truly great music than Stravinsky did, even though he lived 25-30 years shorter, but that's just my opinion, and it's completely open to taste.

It's funny, actually, that these two works, Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No.2, Op. 16, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" were composed at exactly that same time. Exactly. And there were similarly scandalous reactions to each.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on April 15, 2009, 10:30:16 AM
It's funny, actually, that these two works, Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No.2, Op. 16, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" were composed at exactly that same time. Exactly. And there were similarly scandalous reactions to each.

Well, not really similarly scandalous reactions.  Prokofiev's premiere was in St Petersburg, where taste did not run so daring as in Paris.  Which was one of Prokofiev's surprises when he did go to Paris . . . he was used to being an enfant terrible, but his music simply did not shock the Parisians.

And even though I think it specious to equate greatness with one's taste, I agree with your larger point:  probably there is nothing profound in the Third Concerto: so what?

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 15, 2009, 10:41:05 AM
Well, not really similarly scandalous reactions.  Prokofiev's premiere was in St Petersburg, where taste did not run so daring as in Paris.  Which was one of Prokofiev's surprises when he did go to Paris . . . he was used to being an enfant terrible, but his music simply did not shock the Parisians.

First of all, I have no idea what "profound" means, and none of us ever will.

Second, it caused a similar scandal, and not an identical one because nothing is identical. But as I'm sure you'll agree, the degree to which a piece of music causes a scandal doesn't correlate with how great a piece of music it is. Three out of four truly great pieces of music get premiered with not so much as a murmur. It's impossible to compare "scandals," but nevertheless, both of these pieces of music caused scandals, and they were both written at the same time. I find it interesting, that's all, given what I think about these two pieces of music.

I might agree with the Second Concerto... maybe... depending on what you mean by "profound"...

In my opinion, his biggest work (most "profound" would be the Second Concerto), while most people might consider the 5th symphony to be his biggest achievement. Now, if you take another connotation of "profound"- the more intense, deep, side, which Prokofiev rarely shows (or more likely, doesn't have much of- as I like to say, Prokofiev doesn't compose profound or deep music, just great music), then the 6th sonata would be my choice- especially the first movement- I might add the first movement of the 7th sonata, too- it's not very typical of him to be intense in that way.

The 9th sonata is a brilliant antidote, kind of, to the heaviness of those war sonatas. It's crafted beautifully, with the theme of the next movement appearing at the end of the previous, including the beginning's theme reappearing in the end. If there's anything profound in the sonatas, the first movement of the 8th must be it. After repeated listens, I got how wonderfully he introduced that mysterious melody near the opening, and basically descended it into Hell. I know that the 7th is the most popular, but nothing can beat that single movement, in my mind.

Quote from: The Six on April 15, 2009, 07:13:07 PM
The 9th sonata is a brilliant antidote, kind of, to the heaviness of those war sonatas. It's crafted beautifully, with the theme of the next movement appearing at the end of the previous, including the beginning's theme reappearing in the end. If there's anything profound in the sonatas, the first movement of the 8th must be it. After repeated listens, I got how wonderfully he introduced that mysterious melody near the opening, and basically descended it into Hell. I know that the 7th is the most popular, but nothing can beat that single movement, in my mind.

I agree here. You could make a case for the opening movement of the 8th sonata being one of the most profound he's written (not to mention the longest).

Yes, the Piano Sonata No.9, Op.103 has always been one of my absolute favorites. An exquisite work, and there's nothing like it.

As far as the other greats after the Piano Concerto No.2, Op.16, Chout, Op.21; Fiery Angel, Op.37; Piano Sonatas Nos. 6-8, Opp.82-4; Cinderella, Op.87; The Gambler, Op.24; War and Peace, Op.91 are masterpieces of the very first order.

And then there are just so many others. There's millions of them, millions of incredible pieces.

As for the Symphony No.2, Op.40, I agree with what you say. There's a little bit of repetitiousness I feel in the third quarter of the first movement, so it's not a perfect piece. Nevertheless, an incredible work. It's interesting that he was bringing out so much of the percussive quality of music (and with Sarcasms, Op.17; Tocatta, Op.11), even though Peter Laki, the Bartok scholar, maintains that Prokofiev and Bartok really never came in contact with each other's music.

I think Stravinsky composed more interesting music while Prokofiev's music has a more dare I say "Romantic" quality to it. In terms of influence, Stravinsky wins hands down. He is the more influential composer no question about it. This is a standard consensus amongst critics, historians, musicians, and fans. That said, in terms of pure subjectivity, Prokofiev composed some music that I absolutely adore, but I return to Stravinsky more often than Prokofiev. I get tired of Prokofiev's lushness after awhile, though Prokofiev composed his fair share of rhythmically driven music (i. e. the second movement of Scythian Suite). I like constant motivic development and rhythmic complexity which Stravinsky delivers in spades.

Prokofiev and Stravinsky are my favourite composer. :P
Followed by Havergal Brian :-*

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 03, 2011, 05:53:11 PM
I think Stravinsky composed more interesting music while Prokofiev's music has a more dare I say "Romantic" quality to it. In terms of influence, Stravinsky wins hands down. He is the more influential composer no question about it. This is a standard consensus amongst critics, historians, musicians, and fans. That said, in terms of pure subjectivity, Prokofiev composed some music that I absolutely adore, but I return to Stravinsky more often than Prokofiev. I get tired of Prokofiev's lushness after awhile, though Prokofiev composed his fair share of rhythmically driven music (i. e. the second movement of Scythian Suite). I like constant motivic development and rhythmic complexity which Stravinsky delivers in spades.

My oh my how I end up eating my words. :D I feel now that both Prokofiev and Stravinsky were outstanding composers in their own right. I'm at the juncture were I'm starting to think polls like this one are absurd. They prove nothing. The music speaks more loudly as well it should.

Don't worry about it: you're just observing how changeable one's thoughts about the music can be! : )

That said, I notice that I haven't voted here, je-je-je! ; )

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 17, 2011, 02:46:06 PM
Don't worry about it: you're just observing how changeable one's thoughts about the music can be! : )

Yes, as long as a person is open to the music, then a change is most certainly possible.

Quote from: James on October 17, 2011, 05:52:48 PM
No one is more open to music than me .. Stravinsky by a long shot here on this easy poll ..

According to your own poll, Stravinsky lost. :D

This said, I'm more moved by Prokofiev's music than I am Stravinsky's, but I never particularly thought of Stravinsky as a profound composer. His music, for me, is more about structure, rhythm, order, and a constant forward momentum. With Prokofiev, I find that his music is more emotional, lyrically expressive, harmonically interesting, and melodically inventive. It reaches me more than Stravinsky's music. I like Stravinsky's music a lot though, but I have found that as time goes on I'm listening to his music less and less, although I did have a little phase I went through earlier in the year. The same with Sibelius and Nielsen. These composers started off well near the top in my listening sessions and many years ago I hardly ever made much time for Prokofiev to be honest because his music didn't spark that much interest even though it was fascinating to me. This year has proven to be the year of Prokofiev for me. I finally have caught onto his musical language and I'm in constant surprise by how complex it is, but by it's accessibility also.

Quote from: James on October 17, 2011, 06:36:46 PM
Give it time my friend, and believe me ,,, you'll come around after years of checking them all out .. in the end, upon reflection & thought .. you'll realize that Stravinsky is a much, much deeper or more fascinating musician with more to offer. It's not even close.

I guess the years of me spent listening to Stravinsky's music was for nothing? ??? I have listened to both composers extensively. They are two totally different composers, it's just that simple. Stravinsky is master composer and I recognize his influence, but influence doesn't make him the better composer if we were to do such a silly comparison as Stravinsky and Prokofiev. In fact, it was Stravinsky who said that Prokofiev was "the greatest Russian composer after himself." Here's what Shostakovich said about Prokofiev:

"Prokofiev has made an immense, priceless contribution to the musical culture of Russia. A composer of genius, he has expanded the artistic heritage left to us by the great classical masters of Russian music -- Glinka, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninov."

Quote from: James on October 17, 2011, 06:36:46 PM
Give it time my friend, and believe me ,,, you'll come around after years of checking them all out .. in the end, upon reflection & thought .. you'll realize that Stravinsky is a much, much deeper or more fascinating musician with more to offer. It's not even close.

LOL

Quote from: James on October 17, 2011, 06:36:46 PM
Give it time my friend, and believe me ,,, you'll come around after years of checking them all out .. in the end, upon reflection & thought .. you'll realize that Stravinsky is a much, much deeper or more fascinating musician with more to offer. It's not even close.

To you...

James created this poll, ignored the vote, and thinks I don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about. All in an hours work. :)

They're both great, but James thinks he has some profound knowledge that none of us have, and whatever he thinks is absolute truth.

You know what I think of that?

Pfffffffff

:D

Quote from: Greg on October 17, 2011, 07:55:45 PM
They're both great, but James thinks he has some profound knowledge that none of us have, and whatever he thinks is absolute truth.

You know what I think of that?

Pfffffffff

:D

Well anybody who listens to Stockhausen as much as James does gets my vote for "the most outstanding person alive." ::) :D

Quote from: James on October 17, 2011, 05:52:48 PM
No one is more open to music than me

No one is less arrogant than you, either.

Ooh, another thread rich in James Bingo possibilities!

Funny Reading in the early pages of this thread that Prokofiev wrote 90 masterpieces! I've always seen Prokofiev (along with Shostakovich) as one of the most uneven of all the "great" composers. Their high points are very very great, but their (too frequent) lows are horrendous.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 05, 2007, 11:55:07 AM
James, it isn't at all clear to me why you thought the rest of us did not understand the adjective profound.

(* chortle *) Forgot I'd posted that.

Quote from: Guido on October 18, 2011, 05:21:05 AM
Funny Reading in the early pages of this thread that Prokofiev wrote 90 masterpieces! I've always seen Prokofiev (along with Shostakovich) as one of the most uneven of all the "great" composers. Their high points are very very great, but their (too frequent) lows are horrendous.

I think that would make for an interesting discussion. Guido, what five pieces would you include among Prokofiev's horrendous lows, and why?

For a flip side, I'll nominate five lows for Stravinsky (though I shouldn't call them horrendous, quite):

Circus Polka (for a young elephant). Face it, he did it for the money. I dig a great deal of the neo-classical work, but this strikes me as little more than business-as-usual.

Three Pieces for string quartet. Not merely minor works, but whatever for? works

The Suites for small orchestra. Possibly unfair, as they're obviously arrangements/re-treads.

Scherzo à la russe. Definitely one of my I've tried to like this one, really I have pieces.

Ebony Concerto. Sorry.

Quote from: Guido on October 18, 2011, 05:21:05 AM
Funny Reading in the early pages of this thread that Prokofiev wrote 90 masterpieces! I've always seen Prokofiev (along with Shostakovich) as one of the most uneven of all the "great" composers. Their high points are very very great, but their (too frequent) lows are horrendous.

I'm also curious about which works you'd find horrendous... I've listened to almost everything he's written, and the worst I could find are "meh" works- quite a few, but still a somewhat small percentage of his total output.

I'm with you on four of the five Stravinsky works you list, but this one baffles me. Sure, they're not major works, but they certainly seem to me to be several levels higher in both ambition and result than the other ones in the list. (Maybe it's just the string player in me.)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2011, 05:41:39 AM
Three Pieces for string quartet. Not merely minor works, but whatever for? works

I'm going to disagree with the negative comments about the low quality of Prokofiev's minor works as well. One of the things that always strikes me about his music is that even in decidedly unappealing commissioned works like Zdravitsa, there's usually at least a few moments of magic. Except perhaps for a few very late and disinterested works like The Meeting of the Volga and the Don, his propaganda works and incidental music seems to me to be a cut above what Shostakovich was producing in the genre. (And of course there's the October cantata, perhaps the only outright masterpiece in the genre.)

Quote from: James on October 18, 2011, 02:58:00 AM
No it's very beneficial actually, but give it time ..

I'm not going to argue with you about Stravinsky, because he's a composer whose music I've enjoyed a lot, but what I do disagree with you is that you somehow think that you know me better than I know myself when I say that I enjoy Prokofiev more. For some, Prokofiev's music has more emotion, passion, and intimacy and I'm certainly one of those people who feel this way.

I should be hard put to say whether I enjoy either of them more. It's the ol' apples and oranges jig again . . . .

Of course, the apple is obviously the more profound fruit . . . .

Re Karl's choice of the Stravinsky Three Pieces

Quote from: edward on October 18, 2011, 06:56:37 AM
I'm with you on four of the five Stravinsky works you list, but this one baffles me. Sure, they're not major works, but they certainly seem to me to be several levels higher in both ambition and result than the other ones in the list. (Maybe it's just the string player in me.)

Just what I was going to say, except I'm not even that sure they are really minor works at all. Agree with Karl on the others, though.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2011, 07:58:12 AM
Of course, the apple is obviously the more profound fruit . . . .

:P

Just based on pictures alone, it looks as if Prokofiev is taller and even stockier than Stravinsky, arm reach is very important in these types of fights.

Prokofiev was certainly taller. Stravinsky may possibly have kept in better exercise.

Quote from: Luke on October 18, 2011, 08:08:07 AM
Re Karl's choice of the Stravinsky Three Pieces

Quote from: edward on October 18, 2011, 06:56:37 AM
I'm with you on four of the five Stravinsky works you list, but this one baffles me. Sure, they're not major works, but they certainly seem to me to be several levels higher in both ambition and result than the other ones in the list. (Maybe it's just the string player in me.)

Just what I was going to say, except I'm not even that sure they are really minor works at all. Agree with Karl on the others, though.

Note taken, gents!