# Stravinsky??



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Currently on our poll voting for the 50 greatest composers of all time Igor Stravinsky is ranked the highest among all the Modernist composers (unless one counts Debussy or Mahler among these). This is as might be expected. Stravinsky is commonly compared with Picasso as the great Modernist composer. While I agree with this comparison in the sense that both Picasso and Stravinsky were chameleons in nature, beyond that I find the comparison almost insulting to Picasso. Picasso is unquestioned as the towering figure of Modernist art. He produced a virtually unrivaled wealth of masterpieces across most of the 20th century. 

My question is what is Stravinsky's reputation based upon? I agree that the early ballets (Petrouschka, The Rite, and The Firebird). To this one might add a number of other works... especially the Symphony of Psalms. But what other works are you listening too and enthralled with that leads you to believe that Stravinsky was the greatest Modernist composer? I ask this after having picked up most of Stravinsky's oeuvre last year (or thereabout). I found many of the works pleasurable... at time challenging... often witty. But they seldom ever engaged be in the manner in which the other great Modernists have been able to do so: Strauss with his operas or Last 4 Songs, Bartok with his orchestral works as well as his thorny quartets, Shostakovitch with his 2 audacious operas, his best symphonies, his cello concertos, preludes and fugues, and his harrowing quartets, Mahler and Debussy... well do we even need to discuss these? And then there's Britten and his brilliant vocal work including the operas... and even Puccini and Rachmaninoff. I am drawn to these again and again... and quite often they move me in a manner that Stravinsky never does.

So what about it? Beyond the undeniable genius of the early ballets and the Symphony of Psalms where does the genius of Stravinsky lie? What leads you to rate him above all other Modernist composers?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Basically, it was Stravinksy's innovations in rhythm, or more accurately pulse (as his rhythms/time signatures constantly changed & shifted, sometimes within the same bar, I think).

In terms of rhythm, he was just as innovative as Schoenberg was with tonality.

Thing is, you can tell someone is an innovator if people start rehashing him straight away. Eg._ The Rite of Spring _was rehashed by many. Eg. Australian composer of the time, John Antill, did _Coroboree_, which is like _The Rite_ with Australian Aboriginal rhythms and stuff added. Then there's Orff's_ Carmina Burana_, a rehash of much that is in _Oedipus Rex_. In America, he influenced many, like Copland who was I think among the best in not rehashing but synthesising & properly absorbing many aspects of Stravinsky's innovations.

Yes, he was a chameleon, but he was also an innovator & unique. His innovations and unique style went through all his output which I've heard, from the early _Firebird's_ more romantic leaning aesthetic to the late works incorporating serialism.

I'm not interested in his place in the poll. I don't care much for those. As for comparing with Picasso, well it's the closest comparison with a visual artist, despite any limitations of making such a comparison, etc.

My only 'problem' with him is his solid mask, he often comes across as a composer more like a scientist than an artist. Look at an original score with his handwriting, it's like it came from a printing press, not a human hand. But there are works where its easy to penetrate to his personal feelings, emotions and world view. The strongest is the _Symphony in Three Movements_, where he cannot hide his disgust at Fascism, what was going on in Europe in World War II at that time. Another one is his_ Elegie _for solo viola (or violin), written just after he lost his wife, eldest daughter and mother - a triple whammy - but its a very short work and not many people know it. But at the same time, he composed the _Symphony in C _& even though he was in hospital with tubercolosis at that time, you would not know it from hearing this work.

Stravinsky actually influenced a number of who you mention, eg. Shostakovich & Rachmaninov (listen to the rhythms in his _Symphonic Dances_, a late work). Also, I'd guess, Britten to some degree - even if, subliminally, through Shostakovich. Puccini was a huge admirer of _The Rite of Spring _(do you hear some of it at least in _Turandot, _maybe?). Debussy played through the score of_ The Rite of Spring _with Stravinsky in its two piano reduction before its premiere. He slyly quotes it in one of his piano preludes - the second book was composed around that time. Bartok's _Miraculous Mandarin _was heavily influenced by _The Rite_, composed after it, in the same decade. That leaves R. STrauss and Mahler who I think where different to these guys, more extensions of the Romantic era than Modernists to begin with, more or less.

So all these guys bar two where touched by Stravinsky. That's a big part of the reason why he was a key figure in the 20th century. That's not diminishing the others you mention, or others still like Schoenberg, etc.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think it's because Stravinsky's music doesn't take _that _much of listening effort relative to other 20th century comparable pieces to score a "instant hit" pulse with one's ears. I think he was finest when it came to painting large orchestral canvass in ballet music and the like, and a few of the symphonic style works. I can enjoy his music but he was not near Richard Strauss when it came to dramatic musical characterisation in opera.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm mostly into Rembrandt and Jacques-Louis David works, not Picasso. No wonder modern world has no special appeal to me!

At least listening to Stravinsky is more enjoyable than atonal music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> At least listening to Stravinsky is more enjoyable than atonal music.


Because Stravinsky has _never_ written _any_ atonal music. He didn't even go anywhere _near_ serialism.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd say a lot of it lies in how original and influential he is supposed to have been rather than that he wrote a large body of "great" and popular works. 

As for Bartók, I'd say he has a good argument for being a bit under-appreciated popularly. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

And then Hindemith, who is about to be forgotten. Hopefully I'm wrong about that!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

A maverick who evolved his own unique and expressive style and was able to reinvent himself without ever losing his identity.
Some of my favorites,
Orpheus
Concerto for Piano and Wind Instriments
Symphonies of Wind Instruments
Mass

All very different from each other and from the early Russian Ballets.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

@ComposerOfAvantGarde 
I know, I know .. Atonality is the innovation of Schoenberg.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> @ComposerOfAvantGarde
> I know, I know .. Atonality is the innovation of Schoenberg.


I wouldn't call Schoenberg innovative.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

I like Pulcinella, very neo classical style.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Much of Stravinsky's music is relatively easy to _grasp_, even after the early ballets, at least the top layer. Easier than Prokofieff, much of Shostakovitch, most of Bartók. I am referring only to instrumental music, of course.

If I were a psychologist focusing on music, I would wonder why there is such pleasure gained, by some people, in Bartók's string quartets.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

What impressed me most about Stravinsky is how he developed a more economic structuring to his music without losing any of its beguiling qualities - I'd put many of Janacek's works from his last 15 or so years in the same bracket.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Because Stravinsky has _never_ written _any_ atonal music. He didn't even go anywhere _near_ serialism.


I am not a big fan of Stravinsky to begin with, but his serialist music is absolutely the worst. Especially the 12-tone serialist pieces.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Mahler's unfinished 10th symphony shows him experimenting with highly irregular rhythms ,particularly the second movement . Riccardo Chailly has stated that this movement is more difficult to conduct than Stravinsky ! If the ocmposer had loived longer, who knows what might have done?
Some post Sacre works of Stravinsy I like are the symphony in 3 movements, Oedipus Rex, Symphonies of wind instruments, the ballet Jeu De Cartes, Symphony of Psalms, Renard, Le Rossignol , Persephone (unusually gentle and lyrical for htis ocmposer), and the Fairy's Kiss ballet .


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Romantic Geek said:


> I am not a big fan of Stravinsky to begin with, but his serialist music is absolutely the worst. Especially the 12-tone serialist pieces.


I think they're very accessible.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

My only 'problem' with him is his solid mask, he often comes across as a composer more like a scientist than an artist. Look at an original score with his handwriting, it's like it came from a printing press, not a human hand.

This perhaps comes closest to my response. I fully understand his importance... but especially beyond the cited earlier work there is little that really grabs me in any way personally or emotionally. In some sense, Stravinsky is the quintessential Modernist in the manner of T.S. Eliot... or perhaps Marcel Duchamp (who I find to be a a far closer analogy than Picasso)... all wit... irony... and intellectual "rigor" as opposed to the open emotions of the Romantics. And yet if we listen to Mahler, Shostakovitch, Bartok, or even Strauss (_Salome_!? the _Four Last Songs_!?) how much more emotional they strike me. In other words... Stravinsky often seems aloof or distant... like Duchamp.

Again, I see the earlier ballets as something of an exception... but the later works. I suspect that I am not alone here in that I almost never come across anyone here expressing some great love of _Le baiser de la fée_, _Orpheus, Requiem Canticles_ , or _The Flood_. The composers of the "Classical Era" (Mozart, Haydn, etc...) are sometimes criticized by the same admirers of Romanticism for being too witty and clever as opposed to emotionally expressive. And yet one doesn't sense this distance... this aloofness. There is joy and humor... simplicity... and sincerity... and while the music doesn't revel in self-pity or tragedy, the tragic side of life is never forgotten. Where Stravinsky seems to fall short with me is in the realm of "sincerity". I cannot help but feel the raw nerves in Shostakovitch' Cello Concerto or String Quartets... the Angst and the sense of sanity on the very edge in Strauss _Salome_ or _Elektra_... or Berg's _Lulu_. And one need say nothing of Mahler... but much of Stravinsky seems overly calculated... premeditated... coolly self-conscious... and scrupulously contrived.

I am reminded of a scene in a recent video on the life of the cellist Rostropovitch. A cellist studying with Rostropovitch, I believe it was Mischa Maisky, describes how one fellow cellist played before the class... almost effortlessly performing some of the most difficult passages in a manner that left Maisky (and the other classmates) in awe. Rostropovitch sat back... scowled a bit... and then told the student (to paraphrase) "I want you to imagine the most magnificent suitcase... created of the most magnificent interwoven leather and calfskin... the most exquisite gold and silver clasps, and hinges? Can you imagine this." The young cellist... confused... nodded in the affirmative. Rostropovitch continued, "Here... take it..." handing the imaginary suitcase to the student. "Now... open it..." The student continued... acting as if he were opening the suitcase." "And what do you see?" the master cellist asked." After a moments hesitation, the student replied, "nothing." "Exactly!" Rostropovitch continued. "You are like that suitcase. Outside all masterful show and craftsmanship... but inside... there is... NOTHING."

Too often this is how I feel about Stravinsky's later work. Masterful... brilliantly executed... and NOTHING inside.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Too often this is how I feel about Stravinsky's later work. Masterful... brilliantly executed... and NOTHING inside.


Well, thanks for sharing.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I really love The Flood


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well, thanks for sharing.

And of course we all appreciate this recent example of your ever useful comments. Perhaps next you could direct us toward a nice recording of a diesel transmission repair shop.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

RE the issue of Stravinsky being emotionally 'distant,' I actually feel this not only in him, but also strongly in R. Strauss and to some extent Bartok. These were all guys who did not put much of themselves into their music (unlike, as stlukes says, Mahler, Shostakovich, Berg - their music has strong autobiographical focus, mirroring themselves, their intimate lives and their wider circle/context). Eg. you would not think that a world war was going on in terms of Strauss' _Capriccio_ or that Bartok was about to die when composing his _Piano Concerto #3._ This is not a limitation of these works, ultimately the individual listener connects with them or they don't, or they're in the middle and can work on them.

One could argue that Stravinsky avoided Romanticism, or any hangover of it. He said when he composed _Oedipus Rex_, he consciously avoided operatic models of 19th century. That is why it's kind of so static and minimalistic in real staging, and the music uses the simplest of means. When Oedipus realises his whole life has been built on lies, he says 'lux facta est,' something like 'now I see the light.' Accompanying him is a simple chord, I think in the key of C. Its the barest of means, but in that moment, there is so much tragedy and emotion for me. But I had to listen to it and get to know it over time to learn to hear these things. Maybe Stravinsky's emotion is barely there, but when you do discover it, it squarely hits you between the eyes. The_ Symphony in Three Movements_, which I mentioned, is even stronger, I connected with that immediately. & the two slow movements of his_ Violin Concerto_ are also quite emotional, like J.S. Bach's which served as kind of models for it.

Come to think of it, he's probably the least _Romantic_ of the big three Modernists, eg. him & Bartok and Schoenberg. So therein lies 'the rub,' perhaps.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I don't agree about Strauss being so unemotional . On the contrary, his music is filled with radiant warmth !
This may be one reason that Stravinsky had such a low opinion of Strauss . The German composer's music remained
opulently romantic at a time when this was completely out of style , all the way to his death in 1949 .
Not all of Stravinsky's post Sacre music is dry and arid, by any means, even if the romantic sensibility was foreign to him . For example, the Symphonies of wind instruments may be an austere and rather arcane work ,at least arcane at first hearing , but it is still fascinating to hear .  I've performed it myself in concert,
and it's quite rewarding to play , and getting to know it better made it seem quite comprehensible to me .
And there are certainly autobiographic elements in his music , such as Ein Heldenleben, the Symphonia Domestica , and the opera Intermezzo. 
Of ocurse, in Heldenleben, the hero is obviously Strauss in a rather tongue in cheek way, the Domestica 
describes a day in the composer's family life, and Intermezzo is based on an actual incident in his life where his wife mistakenly thought he was having an extramarital affair . The two main characters, conductor Robert Storch and his wife represent Strauss and his wife .


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't agree about Strauss being so unemotional . On the contrary, his music is filled with radiant warmth! This may be one reason that Stravinsky had such a low opinion of Strauss.

Stravinsky seems to have held a rather low opinion of anyone... except himself. Certainly I agree with regard to Strauss. He is a tied-in-the-wool Romantic whose works simply gush with emotion. No... these are not always autobiographical. _Salome_ and _Elektra_ clearly speak of the sexual angst and decadence of the Austrian and German Empires... the whole of _fin de siecle_ Europe in collapse. They are as as much Expressionist works as the paintings of Schiele and Munch, the literature of Hermann Hesse, and the films of Robert Wiene, F. W. Murnau, or Fritz Lang. I don't think emotional content needs to be limited to an expression of the autobiographical, as Sid suggests.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> Stravinsky seems to have held a rather low opinion of anyone... except himself...


They all had big egos. Or most of them. Was recently reading some quotes by the young Schoenberg. Almost as ideological as the young Boulez was. But like Pierre, Arnie mellowed with age.

What R. Strauss and Stravinsky had in common was supporting younger composers than themselves. Eg. R. Strauss was an influence on, and would have supported, eg. Bartok, Varese, Schoenberg and others in their younger years. Of course, these guys quickly departed from the 'late Romantic' aesthetic/style which R. Strauss on the whole hung onto.

Similar with Stravinksy, who after 1945 did express admiration for works by eg. Boulez and Takemitsu. But he had no time for the likes of Orff who basically rehashed _Oedipus Rex_ in _Carmina Burana._ Stravinsky called it 'neo-Neanderthal.' He certainly had an acidic tounge (but so did the likes of Brahms, and of course R. Strauss, saying once Schoenberg went into atonality, he belonged in a lunatic asylum).

I can go on with these anecdotes. None of them where saints, basically.



> ...
> Certainly I agree with regard to Strauss. He is a tied-in-the-wool Romantic whose works simply gush with emotion. No... these are not always autobiographical. _Salome_ and _Elektra_ clearly speak of the sexual angst and decadence of the Austrian and German Empires... the whole of _fin de siecle_ Europe in collapse. They are as as much Expressionist works as the paintings of Schiele and Munch, the literature of Hermann Hesse, and the films of Robert Wiene, F. W. Murnau, or Fritz Lang...


I think that R. Strauss is emotional, but of course he's looking back on the Romantic age. He's the end-point of that period, or one of them. Guys like Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and others where avenues out of that tradition. & as I suggested above, it could be argued that Stravinsky was the most distanced from high or late Romanticism of the three.



> ...
> I don't think emotional content needs to be limited to an expression of the autobiographical, as Sid suggests.


It doesn't need to be limited for you, or anyone. I'm just telling how I feel, what I think. No need to limit or kind of caricature what I say. I'm finding on this forum, this is happening all the time. As you may know, I like a lot of music, not all of it has to be autobiographical to engage me. But many of the composers that do talk to me deeply do have this aspect, eg. not only Berg and Shostakovich, but also Messiaen, Janacek, Brahms, I could go on. Depending on which work/s of course.

But this is another topic, best if we keep to the topic.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I've never met a good instrumentalist who didn't enjoy performing Stravinsky. He 'exacts' rhythmic flexibility (DUMBARTON OAKS, the OCTET, SYMPHONY IN C) by small and unusual subdivisions and groupings, plus and via his web of ostinato figures. But, I understand fully when someone finds a 'coldness' or 'calculated' quality to Strav's music. He is famous for saying that he believed that music was incapable of expressing anything (see Harvard Lectures). I think the artist who is more akin to Stravinsky than Picasso is George Balanchine. The latter used the human body for abstract ballets that did not tell stories, an idea that is everywhere in Stravinsky, not only in his music, but in his regard of instrumentalists as 'executants' (this affront included any singers he required). Perhaps something he said, also in his Harvard Lectures I believe, is useful: "I only become interested in a work when I know how long it will take". 

note: I am remembering those ideas he expressed in the Harvard Lectures, if my paraphrases have fallen too far from the tree, please advise and I'll be grateful.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2012)

NightHawk said:


> I understand fully when someone finds a 'coldness' or 'calculated' quality to Strav's music.


I, on the other hand, do not.



NightHawk said:


> He is famous for saying that he believed that music was incapable of expressing anything.


Music does _sound_ nice, though, doesn't it? If anyone's listening. Is anyone listening, or all you all just using music to make stuff up?

Some musician friends of mine and I used to mock the expressive fallacy this way--no matter what piece was playing, we would say "It is dawn in the forest. A deer runs across the meadow." And so forth. This was funny, to us, and we would giggle like little schoolgirls.* (And, we only did it amongst ourselves. We never mocked any person, just the fallacy.)

In other words, I also do not understand the impulse to make music into other things, like autobiographical confessions. Music is sounds. We are humans. Humans are emotional. We respond to things emotionally. Why, it's even possible to respond emotionally to the sounds of a diesel transmission repair shop. But no, that's just silly. It's only possible to repond emotionally to music that a composer has purposely filled with emotion.

The composer? Or the listener? Yeah. And different listeners respond differently to different pieces--Stravinsky's latter works seem much fuller to me than the middle ones, for sure. I know that that's wrong. Only what StLukesguildOhio says is full is really full. And if he says something is empty, then God forbid anyone else would listen to that music and find it to be full and rich and strong. It's obviously not.

Hmmmm.

*sexist


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

Innovations besides, I've always found Stravinsky a fun listen, and enjoy the boxed set I got awhile back by his. I've found that people who don't even like classical music sometimes enjoy his music. Those are my two cents worth.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

His music is rather aloof and uninvolved emotionally, but I see this as something positive! It distinguishes him, makes him unique and something special. His music presents itself to you with intense colour and rhythmic vitality, and is thoroughly engaging, but you can leave it behind afterwards.


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Again, I see the earlier ballets as something of an exception... but the later works. I suspect that I am not alone here in that I almost never come across anyone here expressing some great love of _Le baiser de la fée_, _Orpheus, Requiem Canticles_ , or _The Flood_.




I do love _Le baiser de la fée_ - I have championed it on these forums more than once, though got no support from anyone else, & I do very much like _Orpheus_, and also his 3 symphonies from his neoclassical period.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Yes, the need for music (instrumental music, esp) to mean something 'extra-musical' is common, and we are conditioned by its use as programmatic backdrop for plays, movies, opera, songs and television. Many people do not like Abstract Expressionistic Art because it does not conform to their personal need for narrative and unfortunately feel threatened by the paintings of Franz Kline or de Kooning.. Same with poetry - I am content to soak in a Wallace Stevens poem, but his metaphorical language is so deeply personal that I just let the words speak only 'of themselves' w/o worrying about any strict linear narrative - I like this quality in art of all kinds.



some guy said:


> I, on the other hand, do not.
> 
> Music does _sound_ nice, though, doesn't it? If anyone's listening. Is anyone listening, or all you all just using music to make stuff up?
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2012)

bassClef said:


> I do love _Le baiser de la fée_ - I have championed it on these forums more than once, though got no support from anyone else, & I do very much like _Orpheus_, and also his 3 symphonies from his neoclassical period.


Really? Sorry. I certainly support your championing. I've loved _Le baiser de la fée_ since the early seventies, and _Orpheus_ is possibly the Stravinsky piece I listen to the most frequently, though _Movements_ and _Les Noces_ are right up there in the frequent listen department.

Probably _L'histoire du Soldat_ is my favorite Stravinsky, but I don't play it as often as some others--maybe trying to keep it fresh?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> Music does sound nice, though, doesn't it? If anyone's listening. Is anyone listening, or all you all just using music to make stuff up?
> 
> Some musician friends of mine and I used to mock the expressive fallacy this way--no matter what piece was playing, we would say "It is dawn in the forest. A deer runs across the meadow." And so forth. This was funny, to us, and we would giggle like little schoolgirls.* (And, we only did it amongst ourselves. We never mocked any person, just the fallacy.)
> 
> ...


But Stravinsky´s music is pretty bound to pictures and the imagery of Russian folklore, for instance. It´s essential in the way we perceive it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2012)

NightHawk said:


> Franz Kline or de Kooning.


Two of my favorites of those older guys. Them and Pollock. Wildly gorgeous stuff.



NightHawk said:


> Same with poetry..., I just let the words speak only 'of themselves' w/o worrying about any strict linear narrative - I like this quality in art of all kinds.


We are agreed.

I ran a poetry workshop for nine years, which is something of a record I've been given to understand, and really pitched the "pay attention to the words and the feelings will sort themselves out" line pretty hot and heavy.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> But Stravinsky´s music is pretty bound to pictures and the Russian folksy culture, for instance.


By whom? (His "Russian" era ended in 1921. He died 50 years later, years filled with music.)

Which pictures, by the way?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The leading authority on this matter is Richard Taruskin, whose "Stravinsky and the Russian Tradition" explores this subject in depth (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/arts/music/18stravinsky.html?pagewanted=all).

Stravinsky´s ballets have a fair deal of imagery.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thinking of this thread, I have remembered what the painter Cezanne said about Monet. "Monet is only an eye, but my God, what an eye" said Cezanne. This kind of objective quality, of seeing things but not getting too involved with them emotionally, applies to Stravinsky. He comes across as more an _objective_ rather than_ subjective _composer. I am not arguing a strict dilineation between the two, merely saying what I think and also some other people on this thread have bought up.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a more objective approach. Listening last night to_ The Rite of Spring_, I was surprised how much I got into it, even if mainly for the amazing technical things he does.

But Stravinsky's music does have content, even if implied. Many of you must have the excellent Naxos recordings of Stravinsky's music done by a man who personally knew him, Robert Craft. The notes to these cd's are excellent, and Craft does a blow by blow account of each work in terms of its history and contents, etc., that makes sense to me as a non-musician. I would urge anyone to read what Craft wrote about Stravinsky, and also his books on Modern music (Craft also knew Schoenberg and others like that). Other writers suggested above sound like a good idea as well.

However, if one does not feel the music in their bones so to speak, and connect with it, don't be too hard on yourself. Just go with what you like in his output, it is vast and has a lot to offer everybody.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Pollock's work is a great experience. I used to live in NYC and Sundays were museum days - saw a lot of his really big paintings using paint that appears on inspection to have come from Lowe's or Walmart. Never saw the movie 'cause I just know they'll focus on the alcoholism and not the paintings. Eastwood did the same thing with heroin in his movie BIRD re Charlie Parker. 

Really should mention something about Igor - he was very superstitious it seems, and so here's a story for ya' - he went to sleep one night troubled about a certain interval he had written in the day's work - he said: 'that night I dreamt of a testicular egg and I knew upon waking that the interval was correct'. 



some guy said:


> Two of my favorites of those older guys. Them and Pollock. Wildly gorgeous stuff.
> 
> We are agreed.
> 
> I ran a poetry workshop for nine years, which is something of a record I've been given to understand, and really pitched the "pay attention to the words and the feelings will sort themselves out" line pretty hot and heavy.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

someguy- Music does sound nice, though, doesn't it? If anyone's listening. Is anyone listening, or all you all just using music to make stuff up?

Some musician friends of mine and I used to mock the expressive fallacy this way--no matter what piece was playing, we would say "It is dawn in the forest. A deer runs across the meadow." And so forth. This was funny, to us, and we would giggle like little schoolgirls.* (And, we only did it amongst ourselves. We never mocked any person, just the fallacy.)

In other words, I also do not understand the impulse to make music into other things, like autobiographical confessions. Music is sounds. We are humans. Humans are emotional. We respond to things emotionally. Why, it's even possible to respond emotionally to the sounds of a diesel transmission repair shop. But no, that's just silly. It's only possible to repond emotionally to music that a composer has purposely filled with emotion.

The composer? Or the listener? Yeah. And different listeners respond differently to different pieces--Stravinsky's latter works seem much fuller to me than the middle ones, for sure. I know that that's wrong. Only what StLukesguildOhio says is full is really full. And if he says something is empty, then God forbid anyone else would listen to that music and find it to be full and rich and strong. It's obviously not.

I am certain that we here are all more than grateful that someguy has once again deigned to come down from the mountain and once again bless us with his words of wisdom and superior grasp of all things musical.

We return you now to our regularly scheduled program...


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2012)

What a pleasant person you are, to be sure....


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I wonder whether we'll ever be able to enjoy and discuss music without blaming each other for not hearing, feeling, and thinking the same things in it. 

I suppose, given human nature, I should be thankful we're not actually inflicting physical pain on each other over this stuff. We probably would, given opportunity.


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

some guy said:


> By whom? (His "Russian" era ended in 1921. He died 50 years later, years filled with music.)
> 
> Which pictures, by the way?


He returned to his russian origins occasionally after he left them in his music, see for example the joyful short but beautiful orchestral work Scherzo a la Russe (1944), and in his later years he remarked that after leaving his homeland for more than 50 years, he still thinks of russian as his primary language and translates his thoughts from russian into other languages.

Even that his russian period was so short in compare to his entire career, ended with Svadebka (Les Noces) or earlier, we know Stravinsky as a great Innovator in the history of music mostly for his russian works like Vesna svyashchennaya (La Sacre du printemps) which I think makes him much more adorable than his later works in Neo-Classical and Serialism styles respectively. Just listen to Renard, Pribautki or Saucers. Such beautiful miniatures never been heard neither before nor after Stravinsky in Western music.

Currently listening to Tilim-Bum:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpviRmjWtzg


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> .... I find the comparison almost insulting to Picasso. Picasso is unquestioned as the towering figure of Modernist art. He produced a virtually unrivaled wealth of masterpieces across most of the 20th century.
> 
> My question is what is Stravinsky's reputation based upon? I agree that the early ballets (Petrouschka, The Rite, and The Firebird). To this one might add a number of other works... especially the Symphony of Psalms. But what other works are you listening too and enthralled with that leads you to believe that Stravinsky was the greatest Modernist composer? Puccini and Rachmaninoff. I am drawn to these again and again... and quite often they move me in a manner that Stravinsky never does.
> 
> Beyond the undeniable genius of the early ballets and the Symphony of Psalms where does the genius of Stravinsky lie? What leads you to rate him above all other Modernist composers?


Clearly, your first impulse is to like the older 'more conventional' in the realms of music, drawn, as it were, to Bartok (no matter how 'modern' very influenced by Strauss), Puccini or Rachmaninoff, the early Stravinsky ballets, and his one nearly retro-conservative neoclassical choral symphony, replete with that chorus, religious sentiment, and 18th century counterpoint. Evidently you may have been brave enough to ride the wilds of "Les Noces" but perhaps it did not move you at all.

Stravinsky, too, like Picasso, was a chameleon, who constantly changed hats and styles throughout his career. Similarly, if one is familiar enough, the works of both are clearly and indelibly stamped with their fingerprints and personalities -- so much so it would be difficult to attribute the works to anyone else.

It is the facts of Pulcinella and almost all the later works which followed; *Les Noces*, Renard, Dumbarton Oaks, the *violin concerto*, the symphony in C, *concerto for two pianos solo*, the Mass, *Apollo*, Orpheus, Agon, *The Rakes Progress*, I*n Memoriam Dylan Thomas*, Orchestra Variations, *Variations for Piano and Orchestra*, Canticum Sacrum, *Threni,* as well as the other smaller works which, like Picasso, constantly re-invent both the creator and the creator's medium -- which is why, less than glibly, Picasso is named as the visual parallel to Stravinsky's musical works, and / or vice verso.

Like Picasso, no matter how 'light or witty' the subject or treatment, no matter how 'playful' or 'emotionally remote' - both continually produced works rendered in a more than masterly manner which leave the viewer / listener feeling that something true and monumental has just been said, also said about the medium itself - and that what was said was something both 'summing up,' directing the craft forward while at the same time sounding rather resolutely 'final.'

I can not think of a more apt pair to make an analogy about parallel careers and the relative importance of their works than Stravinsky / Picasso.

P.s. you said of Picasso, "He produced a virtually unrivaled wealth of masterpieces across most of the 20th century." The same is said of Stravinsky, and I find no less truth to the matter concerning the composer than that same truth about the painter.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

This video could almost have been made in direct response to your post. The discussion is even framed in some of the terms you've used ('sincerity', 'distance'):


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I really love The Flood


Yeah. I had never heard this until today.

I think it's possible Stravinsky's later work is just under-appreciated in light of his earlier work. I'm excited at the idea. It's not like a genius (the Rite is without question the work of a genius) just stops making good music...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> I'd say a lot of it lies in how original and influential he is supposed to have been rather than that he wrote a large body of "great" and popular works.
> 
> As for Bartók, I'd say he has a good argument for being a bit under-appreciated popularly. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
> 
> And then Hindemith, who is about to be forgotten. Hopefully I'm wrong about that!


Hindemith will always stay alive amongst violists. He wrote like, half of our 20th century repertoire lol


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Much of Stravinsky's music is relatively easy to _grasp_, even after the early ballets, at least the top layer. Easier than Prokofieff, much of Shostakovitch, most of Bartók. I am referring only to instrumental music, of course.
> 
> If I were a psychologist focusing on music, I would wonder why there is such pleasure gained, by some people, in Bartók's string quartets.


Bartok's string quartets are my favorite works by him!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Bartok's string quartets are my favorite works by him!


And show how clearly he knew Beethoven and how plain it is to hear that in the quartets! (As a pianist, he was famous as an interpreter of Beethoven.)


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> but especially beyond the cited earlier work there is little that really grabs me in any way personally or emotionally.


This is certainly part of the answer to your question: Stravinsky's prominence is partly due to the fact that he is the patron saint of twentieth century listeners who were, or still are, tired of personally and emotionally grabbing music. More generally, Stravinsky's prominence among modernists is due at least as much to his anti-romantic ideas about music as to his actual music; or, rather, due to the way his music so aptly exemplifies the anti-romantic ideas (even when those ideas were cribbed from or ghostwritten by others). For those so inclined, anyway, Stravinsky's music makes it fun to hate the cathartic outpourings of Mahler symphonies and Strauss operas. I can think of more than a few listeners who would agree 100% with your assessment ("Masterful... brilliantly executed... and NOTHING inside"), except that they would say it in praise rather than condemnation.


----------

