# Stravinsky's late musics



## snoozer (Dec 2, 2014)

I love his earlier to neo-classical style musics, but is it just me who's uncomfortable with his later atonic musics?(like Abraham and Isaac)

Is it because I couldn't understand his philosophy, or his later musics were just a bit of a failure?

How would Stravinsky himself evaluate his later music?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

"How would Stravinsky himself evaluate his later music?"

Well, he was quite happy with them.

He was influenced by Webern. Try some Webern first.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My advice is to listen to something like Agon and forget about the fact that it's a 12 tone work. Just think of it as another delightfully rhythmic and sharp Stravinsky piece.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I'd put Threni on par with any of his works of any period, and there are other gems of his late style as well.

The problem is in part that the recordings of the late works on the Columbia set aren't all that great. Better recordings of most of the pieces have been made in the years since (except Threni! Do it, somebody!).


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

snoozer said:


> I love his earlier to neo-classical style musics, but is it just me who's uncomfortable with his later atonic musics?(like Abraham and Isaac)
> 
> Is it because I couldn't understand his philosophy, or his later musics were just a bit of a failure?
> 
> How would Stravinsky himself evaluate his later music?


With me, the preferences are reversed. I like late-period Stravinsky the most and rarely am I motivated to listen to Igor's works from his neo-classical phase.

In an attempt to answer your questions and not insult you, lack of listener comprehension/receptiveness is typically the situation with most of us (not only you). I don't consider the music as failure. The listener needs to be at a certain level of reception/appreciation for post WW II serialism. The situation is not unlike temperature settings. Some people prefer heat settings at high temps whilst other folks want their dwelling place cooler.
I like my thermostat set at dodecaphony! 

[I expect the mature-in-age Stravinsky saw the values of 12-tone techniques. Quite a number of composers became increasingly dodecaphonic in their later decades of life - consider the output of either Ernst Krenek or Roberto Gerhard (to name only 2)]


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2014)

I love all of Stravinsky, but I too probably listen to late Stravinsky more than to early or middle. Hard to say, really. I have my favorites, and they are from all the stages.

There is certainly no diminuition of craft in the later works. (Wait a minute. Did I just make a terrible pun?)

Anyway, I very much like Prodromides' edit--do consider the output of either Krenek or Gerhard. Do it!!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

some guy said:


> There is certainly no diminuition of craft in the later works. (Wait a minute. Did I just make a terrible pun?)


Well, there was certainly the augmentation of Craft...

Anyway, it's interesting to hear this performance (1963, according to the notes) of music that by all accounts Boulez wasn't too fond of, because it's better in a number of ways than the composer's own version.

A Sermon, A Narrative, and A Prayer:


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Stravinsky's early and late periods are of great interest to me. Of course, his entire œuvre is of remarkable quality, but I don't care as much for his neo classical period.


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

I'm with the OP on this. I have no use for Stravinsky's late period atonal works (or, for that matter ANYONE's atonal stuff!) It's just a lot of noise to me.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

QuietGuy said:


> I'm with the OP on this. I have no use for Stravinsky's late period atonal works (or, for that matter ANYONE's atonal stuff!) It's just a lot of noise to me.


People are probably getting sick of hearing this, but I still don't believe atonality exists. What is called atonality is usually more aptly described as chromatic non-functional music (as opposed to the diatonic/modal non-functional music of other 20th century approaches).

At any rate, I don't understand how a piece as beautiful as this could sound like noise to anybody. It's got lots of triads, shimmering seconds, and some exquisite polyphonic writing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> People are probably getting sick of hearing this, but I still don't believe atonality exists.


Why are you still using that term?


----------



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

I'm an admirer of Igor's later period even though I'm more used to hearing his output from the Firebird through to the Rake's Progress. Threni, Requiem Canticles, The Movements for Piano & Orchestra and the Septet are probably my favourites from the later output.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Speaking of which, the Utah Opera is doing The Rake's Progress for its last opera this season. Should be totally awesome.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I guess I'm with the majority here; I have more later works than neo-classical ones. I never noticed that before.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> People are probably getting sick of hearing this, but I still don't believe atonality exists. What is called atonality is usually more aptly described as chromatic non-functional music (as opposed to the diatonic/modal non-functional music of other 20th century approaches).


Over-all I agree with what you're saying, but just as far as my own personal impressions go I think the term "non-functional" music sounds even worse than calling it "atonal".


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

tdc said:


> Over-all I agree with what you're saying, but just as far as my own personal impressions go I think the term "non-functional" music sounds even worse than calling it "atonal".


It's more accurate, though. In contrast to functional tonality, non-functional music is not based on a hierarchically ordered scale. Atonal implies any number of falsehoods which have been taken as true and used as a stick to bash the music with (anti-tonality, without any center, harmonically random or disordered in some way), and does nothing to define or delimit a sound, a style, or a practice.

Stravinsky's earlier Neoclassical style is also non-functional, in the way sometimes called "pandiatonicism," and most music of the 20th century eliminates or at least submerges tonal function to some degree.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

QuietGuy said:


> I'm with the OP on this. I have no use for Stravinsky's late period atonal works (or, for that matter ANYONE's atonal stuff!) It's just a lot of noise to me.


Really though, digressing for a moment- try the Schoenberg Piano Concerto. I was like you, but found this atonal work approachable. Took me a few listenings, but the music is in there.

Look at that avatar. Would I lie to you?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> It's more accurate, though. In contrast to functional tonality, non-functional music is not based on a hierarchically ordered scale. Atonal implies any number of falsehoods which have been taken as true and used as a stick to bash the music with (anti-tonality, without any center, harmonically random or disordered in some way), and does nothing to define or delimit a sound, a style, or a practice.
> 
> Stravinsky's earlier Neoclassical style is also non-functional, in the way sometimes called "pandiatonicism," and most music of the 20th century eliminates or at least submerges tonal function to some degree.


Perhaps, but the term "non-functional" itself suggests that something does not work - or it has no function. So I would suggest using the term "non-functional" music would also imply any number of falsehoods about the music. It seems to imply "tonality" is a "working" model of music and non-tonality by contrast does not work, or has no use or purpose. In the same way we can observe how many have used the term "atonal" simply to describe a different sound - not based around a hierarchically ordered scale implying this meaning and having no intention to bash the music. But it is individuals perceptions of these terms I'm referencing and how they can be misleading.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> Perhaps, but the term "non-functional" itself suggests that something does not work - or it has no function.


Quite so. Who wants a "non-functional" car, or (as I have now) a "non-functional" bathroom because of a broken drain pipe? Spare me that! 

BTW check out Stravinsky's Mass, which I have just discovered. A beautiful, delicate late work. Hardly non-functional!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> Perhaps, but the term "non-functional" itself suggests that something does not work - or it has no function. So I would suggest using the term "non-functional" music would also imply any number of falsehoods about the music. It seems to imply "tonality" is a "working" model of music and non-tonality by contrast does not work, or has no use or purpose. In the same way we can observe how many have used the term "atonal" simply to describe a different sound - not based around a hierarchically ordered scale implying this meaning and having no intention to bash the music. But it is individuals perceptions of these terms I'm referencing and how they can be misleading.


This is a misleading type of hairsplitting, methinks.

Perhaps blame the first theorists who labeled chords as 'having function' ala common practice harmony, or we could say instead of traditional (common practice) function, all the 'functions' are constantly re-purposed (there's a current buzzword for all

Of course, if it is music, good, bad, tonal, not -- the notes / harmonies _are functioning,_ period 

Then there is the moniker "Atonal," which actually refers to the word part "A = without" and "Tonal = _Tonic._"

People take that for 'tonality thrown wholesale out the window or into the incinerator,' -- while it is a smaller step from late romantic high chromaticism to further free harmony from being thought of as other than 'traditional common practice,' the common practice period itself a rather brief several hundred years -- constantly being undone from Bach to 1900 anyway -- in the overall timeline of western 'classical' music.

Modern and contemporary is "Not common practice harmony," which is maybe the best way to say it -- or as TC colleague Some Guy put it, _"It is not your Grandma's tonality any more."_


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> This is a misleading type of hairsplitting, methinks.
> 
> Perhaps blame the first theorists who labeled chords as 'having function' ala common practice harmony, or we could say instead of traditional (common practice) function, all the 'functions' are constantly re-purposed (there's a current buzzword for all
> 
> *Of course, if it is music, good, bad, tonal, not -- the notes / harmonies are functioning, period *


I'm not blaming anyone, nor splitting hairs. I'm just pointing out that the term "non-functional" music is misleading in the exact same way "atonal" music is. There have been countless posts here by Mahlerian and others over the word "atonal", and now I'm splitting hairs because I'm pointing out an attribute of a different term? How exactly am I being misleading for pointing this out?

Your sentence I placed in bold clearly seems to agree with what I am getting at, so I'm not sure where the disagreement is.


----------

