GMG Classical Music Forum

No tricks this time, it's an honest poll with an honest discussion.

These great composers each have their own unique vision that compliment each other.  Each a symbol of their times in their own way.  You really can't choose just one... but you must. 8)

My favorite is Shostakovich.  Brutal intensity from a shy introvert his dark, sarcastic, angry yet mournful music with flights of joy and humor are a voice for his generation and the generations to come after him. :)

Shostakovich for me too, although I adore Prokofiev. I like your description of Shostakovich, Dave:

QuoteBrutal intensity from a shy introvert his dark, sarcastic, angry yet mournful music with flights of joy and humor are a voice for his generation and the generations to come after him.

For me this is a straight choice between Shosty and Prok. Tricky, but I chose Prokofiev because I find his works more consistently interesting, whereas with Shostakovich I have to pick and choose more.


How 'bout Rimsky vs Glazunov? :D

My answer:  Shostakovich, with Prokofiev in second.

in my honest opinion, Stravinsky, while good, is an overrated (Not quite sure if that is the word I am looking for exactly, but it'll do).  I feel he getsa bit to much credit in the neo-classicist movement.  Maybe it is because his works never really resonated with me, but that's how I see it. 

Never really got into Rachmaninov

Quote from: eyeresist on February 01, 2012, 06:08:18 PM


How 'bout Rimsky vs Glazunov? :D

Mussorgsky  >:D

Stravinsky by several country miles.  Rite, Petrushka, Agon, Violin Concerto, Symphony in Three Movements, Symphony of Psalms, Dumbarton Oaks, Ebony Concerto.  Whew.  DSCH comes next, and he's a couple country miles ahead of the other two.

Quote from: paulrbass on February 01, 2012, 06:11:44 PM
Mussorgsky  >:D

Yes!  I guess we would have Mussorgsky, Rimsky, Borodin, Glazunov and exclude Tchaikovsky because that's just not fair. :)

Quote from: DavidW on February 01, 2012, 06:23:29 PM
Yes!  I guess we would have Mussorgsky, Rimsky, Borodin, Glazunov and exclude Tchaikovsky because that's just not fair. :)

"The Mighty 5"+Glazunov fight to the figurative death?

Well, Mussorgsky still wins, followed by Borodin.

Quote from: DavidW on February 01, 2012, 06:23:29 PM... exclude Tchaikovsky because that's just not fair.

It's not his fault he can't hold a candle to Mussorgsky.

Quote from: paulrbass on February 01, 2012, 06:11:20 PM
My answer:  Shostakovich, with Prokofiev in second.

in my honest opinion, Stravinsky, while good, is an overrated (Not quite sure if that is the word I am looking for exactly, but it'll do).  I feel he getsa bit to much credit in the neo-classicist movement.  Maybe it is because his works never really resonated with me, but that's how I see it. 

Never really got into Rachmaninov

Last year, I went through a huge Stravinsky phase and listened to his music from the beginning to the end. I love many of Stravinsky's works, but he was a composer I had a lot of enthusiasm for in the beginning but that enthusiasm has died down through the years. His music just doesn't touch me like Shosty's or Prokofiev's. I also got tired of Stravinsky's sound-world after awhile of listening to him whereas my enthusiasm for Shosty and Prokofiev in the beginning of my classical listening wasn't very high, but I learned to love their music and I really love it now. Shostakovich and Prokofiev I think have more emotional depth in their music while Stravinsky's music seems to be a lot of surface and no substance.

I never cared about Rachmaninov.

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 01, 2012, 06:31:04 PMI never cared about Rachmaninov.

Well, I like Rachmaninov, and sometimes while listening to his music it seems like the greatest thing ever, but if this was a poll as to who I'd throw the lifebuoy to, I'd have to hope that those enormous hands of his would help him to swim to shore.

Quote from: DavidW on February 01, 2012, 06:23:29 PM
Yes!  I guess we would have Mussorgsky, Rimsky, Borodin, Glazunov and exclude Tchaikovsky because that's just not fair. :)

Also Balakirev, Arensky. Rubenstein?

I am the first second to throw my hat in for Rach.  Not to be different, but rather I have just explored and enjoyed his music more than the other three.  Also, his Vespers (All-Night Vigil) may just be the most beautiful and sublime piece of music ever bestowed upon human kind.  Just my opinion of course. 8)

Quote from: eyeresist on February 01, 2012, 06:47:18 PMWell, I like Rachmaninov, and sometimes while listening to his music it seems like the greatest thing ever, but if this was a poll as to who I'd throw the lifebuoy to, I'd have to hope that those enormous hands of his would help him to swim to shore.

My grandfather's favorite composer is Rachmaninov and while I perfectly accept that he is a pretty good composer (his 2nd symphony I still enjoy), I still don't ever listen to him or have really paid him much attention. His 2nd symphony and Isle of the Dead are too favorites of mine.

Quote from: paulrbass on February 01, 2012, 06:24:52 PM
"The Mighty 5"+Glazunov fight to the figurative death?

Poor Cesar Cui will be the first one to get eaten.

Quote from: Bogey on February 01, 2012, 06:49:46 PM
I am the first second to throw my hat in for Rach.  Not to be different, but rather I have just explored and enjoyed his music more than the other three.  Also, his Vespers (All-Night Vigil) may just be the most beautiful and sublime piece of music ever bestowed upon human kind.  Just my opinion of course. 8)

To clarify, I think Rachmaninoff is a very good composer.  The 2nd and 3rd piano concerto's are evidence, as well as the isle of the dead and Vespers.  Just hasn't clicked for me.

Quote from: paulrbass on February 01, 2012, 07:00:01 PM
To clarify, I think Rachmaninoff is a very good composer.  The 2nd and 3rd piano concerto's are evidence, as well as the isle of the dead and Vespers.  Just hasn't clicked for me.

Oh, no doubt.  Not one in the lot to dislike as David pointed out. 

They are all good, but my vote was for Prokofiev.
Melodic, lyrical, tragic, joyful, dissonant, juvenile, mature, political, classical, modern...

Most interested in Karl's choice for this poll.  I am guessing Stravinsky, but Prok might do the trick.  Hmmmm.

Quote from: Bogey on February 01, 2012, 07:31:43 PM
Most interested in Karl's choice for this poll.  I am guessing Stravinsky, but Prok might do the trick.  Hmmmm.

Another idea for a poll?

Quote from: Bogey on February 01, 2012, 07:31:43 PM
Most interested in Karl's choice for this poll.  I am guessing Stravinsky, but Prok might do the trick.  Hmmmm.

Karl, loves Shosty, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky. He might bow out of this poll, but it will interesting to see his choice if can make this kind of decision.

The choice is between Rachmaninov and Prokofiev for me. Stravinsky is ok, and I understand his place in history, but I don't really like most of his music. Shostakovich is better, but it's mostly the 'non-core' classical music that I like (films and such, but not really the symphonies, chamber music, etc.).

Prokofiev - Alexander Nevsky is a favorite, Peter and Wolf (not much equals this is in the repertoire), the ballets (such brilliance), etc.

Rachmaninov - Here I love nearly everything he wrote: Concertos, Symphonies, choral music, solo piano music, etc. For me, not a dud in the lot. Operas are worth looking into too.  So my vote goes to Rachmaninov.

I really love all this magic emotions in Rachmaninov music, but for me he is  un po dilettante. I can't take him absoletely seriously.

Shostakovich claims for too much seriousness in listening. Even in grotesque. As if he was a Beethoven. But he was not.

Stravinsky started as a genius.  But became too professional.

Prokofiev of course had a lot of week moments but in my opinion he wrote more works wich are really inersting and inspired than all above mentioned. And there are two absolute masterpieces among them: 2nd Symphony and Violin Sonata.
My vote for him.

Quote from: Bogey on February 01, 2012, 07:11:25 PM
Oh, no doubt.  Not one in the lot to dislike as David pointed out. 

Truly: four great composers.

Here I must again invoke the fruit option . . . .

Quote from: paulrbass on February 01, 2012, 07:41:03 PM
Another idea for a poll?

The poll being "what would Karl vote for in the dsch vs stravinsky vs rach vs prok poll"? :D

I should view those results with interest, je-je-je!

Quote from: DavidW on February 02, 2012, 05:05:51 AM
The poll being "what would Karl vote for in the dsch vs stravinsky vs rach vs prok poll"? :D

Yes.  Sort of a way to see who thinks they know Karl's taste the best :P

Who dares to vote against The Rach?   :o

Prokofiev a very close second (if only he had not returned to Russia/Soviet Union).
Shostakovich (if only he had escaped from Russia/Soviet Union)
Stravinsky (if only he had come to America sooner)

Voted for Shostakovich eventually, was very hard choosing. But Shostakovich's symphonies, particularly 5, 10, 11 and 12, are some of my favourite pieces of all time. The concerti also.

So, Prokofiev as a close second. His R+J is one of my favourite pieces of all time. Am just about to start listening to the symphonies again. However, perhaps his music does not contain as much raw emotion as Shostakovich's does. Juliet's Death from R+J to me is certainly one of the most beautiful pieces EVER written though. And Prokofiev certainly did write some of the most enjoyable music ever! The second piano concerto is also a favourite work.

Love so much of Rachmaninov's work. The Symphonic Dances, 3rd piano concerto, Isle of the Dead and 2nd symphony are some of my favourite works of all time.

Never really cared much for Stravinsky, especially the later works. Pieces like the earlier ballets (Rite, Firebird and Petrushka) and the Symphony in Three Movements are amazing works though.

Quote from: madaboutmahler on February 02, 2012, 08:28:16 AM
However, perhaps his [Prokofiev] music does not contain as much raw emotion as Shostakovich's does.

Objection!! >:( >:(





;D

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on February 02, 2012, 08:33:49 AM

Objection!! >:( >:(

;D

Sorry, Greg! :)

I really need to spend some more time listening to the symphonies again, then I might have to reconsider my statement. But it is hard to imagine a composer that could achieve more raw passion and emotion in his music than Shostakovich, (and MAHLER)

Quote from: madaboutmahler on February 02, 2012, 08:39:33 AM
Sorry, Greg! :)

I really need to spend some more time listening to the symphonies again, then I might have to reconsider my statement. But it is hard to imagine a composer that could achieve more raw passion and emotion in his music than Shostakovich, (and MAHLER)

No need to apologize, Daniel.  ;D Opinions, man, opinions.

But raw emotion and passion can be conveyed in so many different forms and genres. DSCH surely could lay in on thick in terms of power (grand fortissimos) and satire, but one thing I get more of from Prokofiev is a tenderness and joyfulness that I don't sense in DSCH's music. I consider that raw emotion as well.

So who voted for other?  I'd like to know what composer was left out-- Schnittke?

I chose Rachmaninov ;D He's one of my absolute favourite composers and my main source of inspiration at the piano (along with Liszt and Beethoven). I extremely love his music, so thrilling, passionate, intense and expressive, it deeply strikes me with its great beauty and power.

Though, I certainly love both Shostakovich and Porokofiev as well, their compositions are definitely gorgeous and impressive.
Stravinsky was a very fine composer, but I don't know much about his music apart from The Rite of Spring, The Firebird, Petrushka and the Capriccio for Piano & Orchestra.

Quote from: Lisztianwagner on February 02, 2012, 09:05:52 AM
Stravinsky was a very fine composer, but I don't know much about his music apart from The Rite of Spring, The Firebird, Petrushka...

Definitely branch out, Igor gets cornered too often by these pieces, great as they are, there is much, much more to explore, and IMO better music of his to discover.

Ilaria, in particular I should commen to you the Concerto per due pianoforti!

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on February 02, 2012, 09:13:43 AM
Definitely branch out, Igor gets cornered too often by these pieces, great as they are, there is much, much more to explore, and IMO better music of his to discover.

QuoteIlaria, in particular I should commen to you the Concerto per due pianoforti!

Thank you for the advices, I will try to follow them; as a matter of fact I certainly need to get to know Stravinsky' music better :)

Any suggestion about the recording for the Concerto per due pianoforti Karl?

Quote from: madaboutmahler on February 02, 2012, 08:28:16 AM
Voted for Shostakovich eventually, was very hard choosing. But Shostakovich's symphonies, particularly 5, 10, 11 and 12, are some of my favourite pieces of all time. The concerti also.

So, Prokofiev as a close second. His R+J is one of my favourite pieces of all time. Am just about to start listening to the symphonies again. However, perhaps his music does not contain as much raw emotion as Shostakovich's does. Juliet's Death from R+J to me is certainly one of the most beautiful pieces EVER written though. And Prokofiev certainly did write some of the most enjoyable music ever! The second piano concerto is also a favourite work.

This poll was, for me, nothing but a rehash of the "Shostakovich vs. Prokofiev" poll, because in my opinion Stravinsky and Rachmaninov are the weak links here. I chose Shostakovich in the last poll and so I chose him again. Prokofiev isn't far behind either. Prokofiev's ballets are something else. They're fantastic works and I actually like the lesser known ones better than the more well-known ones, which proves that he was a master of the idiom. But Prokofiev also composed some great symphonies and concerti. It's interesting you chose Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No. 2 as a favorite as it's one of mine as well. I like the third a lot as well.

But, at the end of the day, Shotakovich will always be my #1 Russian composer.

Quote from: Lisztianwagner on February 02, 2012, 09:47:23 AM
Any suggestion about the recording for the Concerto per due pianoforti Karl?

There's a historical recording of the composer and his son Soulima playing it, Ilaria;  the Naxos recording with Benjamin Frith & Peter Hill is very good.

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 02, 2012, 10:24:17 AMProkofiev's ballets are something else. They're fantastic works and I actually like the lesser known ones better than the more well-known ones, which proves that he was a master of the idiom.

May I ask, what are the lesser known ballets you are thinking of?

Quote from: eyeresist on February 02, 2012, 05:36:19 PM
May I ask, what are the lesser known ballets you are thinking of?

The Prodigal Son, On the Dnieper, Le Pas d'Acier, and The Stone Flower. All of them are worth hearing. My favorite is On the Dnieper. I've fallen in love with this ballet. Wonderful score.

Rachmaninoff without a doubt.

I have nothing against Strav, Prok, or Shosty, but the question wasn't about greatness, originality, historical significance and so on, but which is my favorite.

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 02, 2012, 05:44:41 PM
The Prodigal Son, On the Dnieper, Le Pas d'Acier, and The Stone Flower. All of them are worth hearing. My favorite is On the Dnieper. I've fallen in love with this ballet. Wonderful score.

Thanks. The Steel Step is a lot of fun; I have an Abravanel recording which is actually really good. On the Dnieper hasn't grabbed me yet (I think I have the suite recorded by Depriest and Rozhdestvensky). Recommendations for the Stone Flower? I know Jurowski's "revival" of it was praised, but perhaps that has been superceded.

Quote from: eyeresist on February 02, 2012, 06:02:14 PM
Thanks. The Steel Step is a lot of fun; I have an Abravanel recording which is actually really good. On the Dnieper hasn't grabbed me yet (I think I have the suite recorded by Depriest and Rozhdestvensky). Recommendations for the Stone Flower? I know Jurowski's "revival" of it was praised, but perhaps that has been superceded.

The only recording I own of On the Dnieper is with Jurowski on CPO. It's really a great performance and this ballet should be heard in it's complete form. Yes, Jurowski's The Stone Flower is very good as is Noseda's on Chandos. Rozhdestvensky's is pretty good but suffers from bad audio quality. I think the general problem I have with The Stone Flower is that it's a bit overlong. It's short on memorable material and seems, at many times, like notespinning, which is rare from Prokofiev, but I would take this ballet over anything Rachmaninov wrote. :) Anyway, seek out the whole Jurowski on CPO series, it's great.

Thanks, MI. I have a CD with Jarvi conducting excerpts from the Stone Flower; don't know how you feel about Jarvi. I will look for the CPO discs.

Quote from: eyeresist on February 02, 2012, 06:45:57 PM
Thanks, MI. I have a CD with Jarvi conducting excerpts from the Stone Flower; don't know how you feel about Jarvi. I will look for the CPO discs.

You're welcome. Those excerpts are actually very well performed by Jarvi (one of my favorite Prokofiev conductors). All of the Jurowski CDs should be able to be found for good prices. I remember when I bought them I got a great deal on them. Sarge has said he got great deal through jpc but I'm not sure if their sale for these recordings is still going.

Prokofiev, narrowly.  All those marvelous melodies... Romeo & Juliet and Alexander Nevsky were 2 of the works that first got me into classical music years ago.

Confession time -- while I love Prokofiev and Rachmaninov, and greatly enjoy some Stravinsky, I'm still not a gigantic Shostakovich fan.  Most of the symphonies I've heard don't do much for me -- I've actually warmed much more quickly to the solo piano works and the string quartets, which is unusual for me.  Nothing against DSCH, of course -- my musical path just hasn't carried me there yet.

Quote from: jwinter on February 03, 2012, 03:31:17 PM
Prokofiev, narrowly.  All those marvelous melodies... Romeo & Juliet and Alexander Nevsky were 2 of the works that first got me into classical music years ago.

Confession time -- while I love Prokofiev and Rachmaninov, and greatly enjoy some Stravinsky, I'm still not a gigantic Shostakovich fan.  Most of the symphonies I've heard don't do much for me -- I've actually warmed much more quickly to the solo piano works and the string quartets, which is unusual for me.  Nothing against DSCH, of course -- my musical path just hasn't carried me there yet.

Yeah, Shostakovich is a hard, jagged pill to swallow for some. I've heard some people say if you like Prokofiev then you'll naturally like Shostakovich. This isn't true at all. They're really different from each other and while Shosty borrowed a few tricks from the ol' Prokofiev grab bag, he still remained a unique composer of his own with his own distinctive musical language.

Shostakovich would be the expected leader really based on reputation, Stravinsky I've tended to feel is a bit overrated, Rachmaninov probably has the least reputation of them.

Based on piano music only:

1. Scriabin
2. Shostakovich (for op. 87 alone)
3. Prokofiev
4. Rachmaninoff
5. Schnittke
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Stravinsky

Quote from: mszczuj on February 02, 2012, 02:02:28 AMShostakovich claims for too much seriousness in listening. Even in grotesque. As if he was a Beethoven. But he was not.

Actually, I think you're wrong on all accounts. Shostakovich wrote a lot of different kinds of music and in many genres. There is a lot of good-natured humor and sarcasm in many of his works (i. e. Symphony No. 9, Jazz Suites 1 & 2, The Bolt, The Golden Age). I don't think he thought of himself as some kind of Beethoven. That's such an absurd, uneducated assertion on your part. He was by all accounts a very humble man who happened to find a way to express himself despite the difficult strain that was put upon him by the Soviet government. There were many times when Shostakovich didn't even know whether he was going to live to see the next day because he was so fearful of what might happen to him or his family. All he wanted more than anything was to be left alone.

All of this, of course, doesn't even begin to tip the iceberg in all of what he had to endure under Stalin's reign.

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 07, 2012, 08:27:22 PM
I don't think he thought of himself as some kind of Beethoven.

Of course not. This seriousness is what he thought about music (You know: Music). And then he work in this Music.

Or even not what he thought about music himself. It was just what was concerned to be the essence of music in Soviet Union. And he works in it.

Quote from: mszczuj on February 07, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
Of course not. This seriousness is what he thought about music (You know: Music). And then he work in this Music.

Or even not what he thought about music himself. It was just what was concerned to be the essence of music in Soviet Union. And he works in it.

Well the analogy you used just didn't make much sense. That's all I'm saying.

For me its Shostakovich by a long way although I am also interested in Prokofiev to a lesser extent.
I do love Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos and Vespers though - beautiful works! :).

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 08, 2012, 06:51:04 AM
Well the analogy you used just didn't make much sense. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not sure if your lack of ability to catch some senses is really aproppriate reason for making statements about education level of anybody else.

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century. The concept of music (or rather concept of art) which was the background of the musical life in Soviet Union was not fully suitable to make possible to understand this simple fact.

Shostakovich was as good as possible within this model. But this model was simply invalid. Prokofiev was much better when worked outside it. His main achievements (of course it is my opinion and my experience) from period after his return to Soviet Union were piano and violin sonatas which was not so much involved in this model of art as the part of state propaganda. But his orchestral music from this period is for me much less interesting than orchestral music of Shostakovich. On the other hand Shostakovich even in his best symphonies was not so interesting (for me, of course for me) as was Prokofiev in his best as 2nd symphony or 3rd piano concerto.

I mean Shostakovich was able to make the almost interesting symphony about Lenin, Prokofiev was not. But you can make only almost and not really interesting symphony about Lenin. And for being able to make such the almost interesting symphiony about Lenin you must accept some points (I mean really accept) which make you unable to make really interesting symphony.

In other words both Shostakovich and Rachmaninov are for me in some sense the naive composers. Prokofiev and Stravinsky are not.

All I wanted to say is: Shostakovich is not my man.

(Though I like some his works like the 6th Symphony or the 8th String Quartet).

When I think why I can't like him as much as I like Prokofiev, my answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda).

Quote from: mszczuj on February 08, 2012, 11:32:37 AM

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century.

The first half of the 20th century still had some heroic rhetoric, but it is a long time after the late classicists and the original romantics.  That may be one reason I prefer music from the second half of the 20th century where I think music became more inward.

Quote from: mszczuj on February 08, 2012, 11:32:37 AM
I'm not sure if your lack of ability to catch some senses is really aproppriate reason for making statements about education level of anybody else.

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century. The concept of music (or rather concept of art) which was the background of the musical life in Soviet Union was not fully suitable to make possible to understand this simple fact.

Shostakovich was as good as possible within this model. But this model was simply invalid. Prokofiev was much better when worked outside it. His main achievements (of course it is my opinion and my experience) from period after his return to Soviet Union were piano and violin sonatas which was not so much involved in this model of art as the part of state propaganda. But his orchestral music from this period is for me much less interesting than orchestral music of Shostakovich. On the other hand Shostakovich even in his best symphonies was not so interesting (for me, of course for me) as was Prokofiev in his best as 2nd symphony or 3rd piano concerto.

I mean Shostakovich was able to make the almost interesting symphony about Lenin, Prokofiev was not. But you can make only almost and not really interesting symphony about Lenin. And for being able to make such the almost interesting symphiony about Lenin you must accept some points (I mean really accept) which make you unable to make really interesting symphony.

In other words both Shostakovich and Rachmaninov are for me in some sense the naive composers. Prokofiev and Stravinsky are not.
All I wanted to say is: Shostakovich is not my man.

(Though I like some his works like the 6th Symphony or the 8th String Quartet).

When I think why I can't like him as much as I like Prokofiev, my answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda).

For the bolded section:  By linking Shostakovich to LvB, you are evaluating DS's music, whether directly or indirectly.  And I quote: 

QuoteAs if he was a Beethoven. But he was not.

How is that not an evaluation?  LvB is arguably among the top 3 composers of history, you claimed he doesn't match up (Another argument for another day).  If you're going to say that, don't be surprised if people (correctly) think you are evaluating DS. 

For the bolded and Italicised:  Another judgement, and an opinion. 

For the underlined:  You are entitled to your opinion, of course.  It is fine not to like DS's music, as it's ok to not like other composers music.  I don't want to give you the impression that you are "wrong" for not liking his music.

You're assertion that he spent to much time with the State Philharmonic is a problem is absurd, there is no reason to even discuss that. 

Lastly, how do you measure Naivity in music?  I would like to understand where you are coming from, as that's the last thing I think of when I listen to a DS symphony. 

Quote from: mszczuj on February 08, 2012, 11:32:37 AM
I'm not sure if your lack of ability to catch some senses is really aproppriate reason for making statements about education level of anybody else.

I did not make any analogy and even did not make any eveluation. Shostakovich was not Beethoven simply beceause no Beethoven was possible in the 20th century. The concept of music (or rather concept of art) which was the background of the musical life in Soviet Union was not fully suitable to make possible to understand this simple fact.

Shostakovich was as good as possible within this model. But this model was simply invalid. Prokofiev was much better when worked outside it. His main achievements (of course it is my opinion and my experience) from period after his return to Soviet Union were piano and violin sonatas which was not so much involved in this model of art as the part of state propaganda. But his orchestral music from this period is for me much less interesting than orchestral music of Shostakovich. On the other hand Shostakovich even in his best symphonies was not so interesting (for me, of course for me) as was Prokofiev in his best as 2nd symphony or 3rd piano concerto.

I mean Shostakovich was able to make the almost interesting symphony about Lenin, Prokofiev was not. But you can make only almost and not really interesting symphony about Lenin. And for being able to make such the almost interesting symphiony about Lenin you must accept some points (I mean really accept) which make you unable to make really interesting symphony.

In other words both Shostakovich and Rachmaninov are for me in some sense the naive composers. Prokofiev and Stravinsky are not.

All I wanted to say is: Shostakovich is not my man.

(Though I like some his works like the 6th Symphony or the 8th String Quartet).

When I think why I can't like him as much as I like Prokofiev, my answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda).

You don't like Shostakovich's music and you prefer him to another composer, that's fine, but don't make such silly assertions that don't do anything but reveal your lack of understanding of Shostakovich's merits as a composer. You did make a comparison between Beethoven and Shostakovich. Beethoven is one of the most revered composers in music history. I don't like a lot of Beethoven, but this is just the reality. What is also a reality is the popularity and greatness of Shostakovich whether you agree or disagree, his music is still some of the most compelling music to come out of the 20th Century. History has been very kind of Shosty and there are plenty of people who hold his music in high regard and he's still being performed in the concert halls. Not that this means he's a great composer by any stretch of the word, but merely that his importance has been evaluated and he remains a composer people are very much interested in hearing again and again. He's one of my absolute favorite composers and I think he is, indeed, one of the greatest in music history.

OK, I'll bite.

I wouldn't be able to answer if this were a question of 'greatest', but -- simply put -- of these four, Prokofiev consistently speaks the most directly to me.

Quote from: paulrbass on February 08, 2012, 12:23:26 PM
For the bolded section:  By linking Shostakovich to LvB, you are evaluating DS's music, whether directly or indirectly.  And I quote:  How is that not an evaluation?  LvB is arguably among the top 3 composers of history, you claimed he doesn't match up (Another argument for another day).  If you're going to say that, don't be surprised if people (correctly) think you are evaluating DS. 

There are some other options to make remarks about music not only very good, good, bad, very bad.

I wrote "Shostakovich claims for too much seriousness in listening. As if he was Beethoven." And it was about problem with too much seriousness not with trying to write too good music.

I really can't understand how you can imagine that it is possible to accuse anybody of trying to be better.

I just think that this kind of seriousness which is possible in Beethoven music was appropriate only because it was written in the very transitional period in the history of orchestra - it was not written for the institutional orchestra.

I mean there is some lack of naturality in institution of philharmony.

Quote
For the bolded and Italicised:  Another judgement, and an opinion. 

I did not denied that I made judgment or opinion,  I only denied that sense of my comparison of Beethoven and Shostakovich was in evaluation of their music.

Quote
You're assertion that he spent to much time with the State Philharmonic is a problem is absurd, there is no reason to even discuss that.

Yes, it is absurd. What a luck I did not make any assertion like this. It was not about the musicians but about the state. You probably are not able to understand what means the state orchestra in the police state. You probably think that the state means the taxes as in a free world. No. The state means pressure. And some useful Khrennikovs.

Quote
Lastly, how do you measure Naivity in music?

I just see it. Some composers are not naive at all. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky. They absolutely understand all intellectual context of music.

Naivity has nothing to lack of value as it could be a very good source of inspiration.

Quote
I would like to understand where you are coming from, as that's the last thing I think of when I listen to a DS symphony. 

What do you mean by "where you come from"?

Quote from: mszczuj on February 08, 2012, 02:51:22 PM
There are some other options to make remarks about music not only very good, good, bad, very bad.

I wrote "Shostakovich claims for too much seriousness in listening. As if he was Beethoven." And it was about problem with too much seriousness not with trying to write too good music.

I really can't understand how you can imagine that it is possible to accuse anybody of trying to be better.

I just think that this kind of seriousness which is possible in Beethoven music was appropriate only because it was written in the very transitional period in the history of orchestra - it was not written for the institutional orchestra.

I mean there is some lack of naturality in institution of philharmony.

I did not denied that I made judgment or opinion,  I only denied that sense of my comparison of Beethoven and Shostakovich was in evaluation of their music.

Yes, it is absurd. What a luck I did not make any assertion like this. It was not about the musicians but about the state. You probably are not able to understand what means the state orchestra in the police state. You probably think that the state means the taxes as in a free world. No. The state means pressure. And some useful Khrennikovs.

I just see it. Some composers are not naive at all. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky. They absolutely understand all intellectual context of music.

Naivity has nothing to lack of value as it could be a very good source of inspiration.

What do you mean by "where you come from"?

I am not sure what you are exactly saying in that DS claims too much seriousness in listening.......before I dismiss it as another absurd argument, please explain it to me.  As it stands, it makes no sense.

Quote
I did not denied that I made judgment or opinion,  I only denied that sense of my comparison of Beethoven and Shostakovich was in evaluation of their music.

And yet, you continue to evaluate DS's music, even indirectly.

QuoteYes, it is absurd. What a luck I did not make any assertion like this. It was not about the musicians but about the state. You probably are not able to understand what means the state orchestra in the police state. You probably think that the state means the taxes as in a free world. No. The state means pressure. And some useful Khrennikovs.

Semantics maybe.....But this is what you said:

Quotemy answer is that he was too much  involved (just because he wrote for state philharmonic orchestras) in the seriousness of state propaganda which forced him to make music as serious  as was music of Bethoven which was not really possible in his days (even if he tried some kinds of seriousness which were just contradictoitry to seriousnes of art as propaganda)

You claimed he was involved in propaganda because he wrote for State Philharmonic Orchestras, even though only 4, maybe 5, were outwardly "Progandist" (2, 3, 7, 11, 12).  Where can you say that he wrote too "serious" music just because he wrote for the LPO?  (or more specifically, Mravkinsky who prmiered 5-12?)  Instead of attacking me and my knowledge (or, in your (incorrect) view, my lack of knowledge) come with an argument that makes sense, or at least apply the same judgements to Prokofiev who wrote for the same institutions after he returned to Russia.

QuoteI just see it. Some composers are not naive at all. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky. They absolutely understand all intellectual context of music.

Naivity has nothing to lack of value as it could be a very good source of inspiration.

Convenient that you have no way of measuring Naivity.  Therefore, I can claim everything Prokofiev wrote was full of said quality, (I won't say it, because it's not measurable, and not really true.)

QuoteWhat do you mean by "where you come from"?

Don't pretend you don't understand.  I would like to understand your line of thinking.  Simple enough?

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 08, 2012, 12:41:07 PM
You don't like Shostakovich's music and you prefer him to another composer, that's fine, but don't make such silly assertions that don't do anything but reveal your lack of understanding of Shostakovich's merits as a composer. You did make a comparison between Beethoven and Shostakovich. Beethoven is one of the most revered composers in music history. I don't like a lot of Beethoven, but this is just the reality. What is also a reality is the popularity and greatness of Shostakovich whether you agree or disagree, his music is still some of the most compelling music to come out of the 20th Century. History has been very kind of Shosty and there are plenty of people who hold his music in high regard and he's still being performed in the concert halls. Not that this means he's a great composer by any stretch of the word, but merely that his importance has been evaluated and he remains a composer people are very much interested in hearing again and again. He's one of my absolute favorite composers and I think he is, indeed, one of the greatest in music history.

I told you that your lack of understanding is not sufficient reason to evaluate. So please be so nice and stop remarks as uneducated or silly. Or at least use them with any sense.

I absolutely agree with you that Shostakovich was great master. But not find him perfect and suppose that the reason for it is his acceptance of model of musical life in his country. He was still able to write some very interesting music. I  really like the 8th String Quartet, Piano Quintet or 6th Symphony. But you know within the model you just can't say everything.

Quote from: mszczuj on February 08, 2012, 03:31:58 PM
I told you that your lack of understanding is not sufficient reason to evaluate. So please be so nice and stop remarks as uneducated or silly. Or at least use them with any sense.

I absolutely agree with you that Shostakovich was great master. But not find him perfect and suppose that the reason for it is his acceptance of model of musical life in his country. He was still able to write some very interesting music. I  really like the 8th String Quartet, Piano Quintet or 6th Symphony. But you know within the model you just can't say everything.

Fine, but I still don't even know why you even brought in the Shostakovich/Beethoven analogy? I mean it just made you look ignorant, which it still does. Half of the other junk you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Too much seriousness in Shostakovich's music? Have you even listened to Shostakovich's music before? Not all of his music is like this.

Anyway, I'm done trying to make you understand...

I don't give a damn if Shostakovich wrote propaganda numbers during the day, then during the night went round to the Kremlin to service Stalin sexually. It's simply not relevant to assessment of the music as music.

And BTW Prokofiev also wrote a lot of propaganda music, and pieces for state organisations (did you know that, in the USSR, every organisation was a state organisation?).

Quote from: paulrbass on February 08, 2012, 03:11:10 PM
Don't pretend you don't understand.  I would like to understand your line of thinking.  Simple enough?

But he might not understand that phrase.  I haven't been reading all of this, but I really don't really understand why this is getting so heated and lacking some courtesy.

Quote from: starrynight on February 08, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
But he might not understand that phrase.  I haven't been reading all of this, but I really don't really understand why this is getting so heated and lacking some courtesy.

Would like to apologize for that, I sometimes get angry too quickly.

Quote from: paulrbass on February 08, 2012, 03:11:10 PM
Semantics maybe.....But this is what you said:You claimed he was involved in propaganda because he wrote for State Philharmonic Orchestras, even though only 4, maybe 5, were outwardly "Progandist" (2, 3, 7, 11, 12).  Where can you say that he wrote too "serious" music just because he wrote for the LPO?  (or more specifically, Mravkinsky who prmiered 5-12?)  Instead of attacking me and my knowledge (or, in your (incorrect) view, my lack of knowledge) come with an argument that makes sense, or at least apply the same judgements to Prokofiev who wrote for the same institutions after he returned to Russia.Convenient that you have no way of measuring Naivity.  Therefore, I can claim everything Prokofiev wrote was full of said quality, (I won't say it, because it's not measurable, and not really true.)Don't pretend you don't understand.  I would like to understand your line of thinking.  Simple enough?

I'm not attacking you for your lack of knowledge. I just suppose that you have never lived in communistic country.

First I don't know if you understand that all orchestras in Soviet Union were the state orchestras. All. As String Quartets were - unless they play only at home. (Of course there were some possible exceptions with quartets made ad hoc for some performances - but it was exactly exceptions.)

So there was no possibility to make any pure art. All compositions were acts of state.

And of course I apply this some argument to the music of Prokofiev. I don't find his Soviet symphonies interesting at all.

This kind of false seriousness is not the problem of only soviet orchestras. The roots of it are in the whole organization of concert life. There is really great contradiction in the very concept of romantic symphony. Haydn and Mozart wrote symphonies which were concieved as good spiritual entertaiment. Beethoven wrote symphonies as a great spiritual events, unique revelations - but there were nothing contradictory in it as he wrote it for unique events.

Romantics struggled to write unique great spiritual achievements for weekly concerts.

It is a little ridiculous idea.

You must be naive to not see it and compose as if such affort was possible. And the naivity is the way to achieve it - if you not try to be more precise in revealing spiritual nature of universe than Schelling or Hegel (like used Beethoven to do) but only try to represent visit of tsar in Olomouc you can make weekly concert a beautiful experience.

Almost all composers between Beethoven and... well, probably Ravel, are naive. The one exception is Chopin, who was probably less naive of all. So he did not even try to write music to be performanced in weekly concerts. I suppose the second exception is Saint-Saens who was shameless in posing as naive.

to be continued, I'm sorry it is really late night in my country and I'm loosing interest in thinking about music...

Quote from: eyeresist on February 08, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
I don't give a damn if Shostakovich wrote propaganda numbers during the day, then during the night went round to the Kremlin to service Stalin sexually. It's simply not relevant to assessment of the music as music.

And BTW Prokofiev also wrote a lot of propaganda music, and pieces for state organisations (did you know that, in the USSR, every organisation was a state organisation?).

Yeah, Shostakovich could write a circus polka and I would probably enjoy it, because he had such a unique way with music. It doesn't matter that he wrote propaganda music, but given the circumstances did he have much choice? No, because Stalin would have killed him if he refused. Think about the film score The Fall of Berlin for example. This is nothing but a film about the glorification of Stalin and his winning of the war. Stalin wanted, I'm sorry ordered, Shostakovich to write the music for it. We probably would have never heard another work prior to this score if he had refused. Stalin banned Shostakovich's music after the 9th symphony and this was especially hard on Shostakovich who was stuck writing film music just to pay the bills.

That's an idiom, and a non-native speaker would probably be apt to mistake it for a physical, geographical reference.

Quote from: mszczuj on February 08, 2012, 02:51:22 PM
I just think that this kind of seriousness which is possible in Beethoven music was appropriate only because it was written in the very transitional period in the history of orchestra - it was not written for the institutional orchestra.

Could you elaborate on this? Why would seriousness be appropriate or inappropriate? That sounds awfully prescriptive to me.



Thread Duty:

Rachmaninov, solely because he's an old love. Piano Concerto No. 3 was my introduction to the form and left a lasting impression on me. I like the other three quite a bit so this was a hard call. I wouldn't pick him as the greatest composer of the four though.

Quote from: eyeresist on February 08, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
I don't give a damn if Shostakovich wrote propaganda numbers during the day, then during the night went round to the Kremlin to service Stalin sexually.

Dude, It's just that sort of thing which gets multiplied on the InterWebbs and eventually becomes a wiki "fact."

Just saying . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on February 09, 2012, 04:27:49 AM
Dude, It's just that sort of thing which gets multiplied on the InterWebbs and eventually becomes a wiki "fact."

Just saying . . . .

Loose lips sink ships.

Say that ten times, fast.

Proko