Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky

[karlhenning]

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? 

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

I 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.)

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 some sort of masterpiece imho.

You are perfectly right on all counts, there.

[karlhenning]

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.

[71 dB]

Yes. Really.

If you say so.

Where 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.

Yes, 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?

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

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 

[rappy]

Good 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.

[71 dB]

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:)

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

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

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

"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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

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

That's neat, staightforward and linear.

Right up James's street 

[karlhenning]

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.

[Guido]

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

[karlhenning]

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.

[Guido]

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.