# Britten-ites vs. Stravinsky-ites



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Stravinsky* gets plenty of love but what about the comparatively lesser known *Britten*? Is the latter the former's equal or dare I say, superior? *Put up your dukes!*


----------



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

I won't put up my dukes, just simply my thumbs. Both wonderful composers.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> I won't put up my dukes, just simply my thumbs. Both wonderful composers.


A pacifist, eh?


----------



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

Definitely on this occasion - I really can't choose between them even though they had their own perspectives and strengths. My only niggling regret was that neither composed as much chamber music as I would have liked (especially Stravinsky) but had they done so it would have been at the expense of something else anyway.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I like Britten his music but he is not on the same level as Stravinsky


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> *Stravinsky* gets plenty of love but what about the comparatively lesser known *Britten*? Is the latter the former's equal or dare I say, superior? *Put up your dukes!*


Britten was a formidable composer.

Stravinsky is called by many, "the Bach of the 20th century" -- and to me, even that sobriquet is in the sub-basement of inadequate and palest of expressions for how great Stravinsky is.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I chose Stravinsky because Britten hasn't clicked with me. I had one CD of Britten's music in my CD stack, his War Requiem. A friend borrowed it and never returned it, and I wasn't bothered enough by its loss to ask for it back.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Manxfeeder said:


> I chose Stravinsky because Britten hasn't clicked with me. I had one CD of Britten's music in my CD stack, his War Requiem. A friend borrowed it and never returned it, and I wasn't bothered enough by its loss to ask for it back.


Friend's gain, your loss.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Britten was a formidable composer.
> 
> Stravinsky is called by many, "the Bach of the 20th century" -- and to me, even that sobriquet is in the sub-basement of inadequate and palest of expressions for how great Stravinsky is.


I know Stravinsky is great but what makes him so much greater than a 'formidable' composer like Britten?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> I like Britten his music but he is not on the same level as Stravinsky


Why is Britten not on the same level as Stravinsky?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Why is Britten not on the same level as Stravinsky?


Stravinsky's music was radical in his time both with neo classical music and with the rite of spring while Britten was very conservative. I like everything I've heard from Stravinsky and I cannot say the same of Britten his music.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Just wondering why this is in Articles, i.e.: where's the article?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I know Stravinsky is great but what makes him so much greater than a 'formidable' composer like Britten?


If you are well familiar enough with each of these composer's overall oeuvre, what then genuinely fascinates me more is -- why would you ask the question -- i.e. what for you is there about Britten which makes good argument to dislodge Stravinsky and then bump Britten 'up' to "greatest composer of the 20th century?"


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> If you are well familiar enough with each of these composer's overall oeuvre, what then genuinely fascinates me more is -- why would you ask the question -- i.e. what for you is there about Britten which makes good argument to dislodge Stravinsky and then bump Britten 'up' to "greatest composer of the 20th century?"


Stravinsky is an exceptional craftsman but then so is Britten. To my ear, what Stravinsky's music lacks (notwithstanding the early ballets) is a soul. Beneath his beautiful, immaculate facades, there's nothing of substance; he has nothing to say. Britten's art is rich in feeling and emotion; it speaks truth. Stravinsky's language is that of an educated sociopath's. Beneath the flawless exterior, it is empty.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, yeah, 'soul' 

I find Stravinsky's 'immaculate facades' to have such an amazing and purely _aesthetic_ appeal that I don't need trucks of obvious 'emotion' to feel moved: abstract aesthetic ideas also move me ;-)

In fact, a great part of my enjoyment in music is abstract and aesthetic, i.e., 'hey, that sounds cool'. 'Emotion' is for me a secondary effect in this sense. Stravinsky's sense of aesthetic is really unrivaled.

The fact that the guy could go from those early ballets to explore neoclassical aesthetics, and always producing first class pieces, shows his incredible talent and versatility, as well as his intellectual curiosity and desire to explore music from different points of view. A multifaceted/multidimensional artistic mind: that's what makes him the greatest.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm always amazed at--though I enjoy--extreme differences of opinion. I find Stravinsky among the most soulful and passionate composers I've encountered.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Oh, yeah, 'soul'
> 
> I find Stravinsky's 'immaculate facades' to have such an amazing and purely _aesthetic_ appeal that I don't need trucks of obvious 'emotion' to feel moved: abstract aesthetic ideas also move me ;-)
> 
> ...


One can easily say the same of Britten but aesthetic appeal alone does not grant immortality. Let's also remember that Britten was just as consistent in producing work of high artistic quality in almost every genre (within the classical framework).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Stravinsky is an exceptional craftsman but then so is Britten. To my ear, what Stravinsky's music lacks (notwithstanding the early ballets) is a soul. Beneath his beautiful, immaculate facades, there's nothing of substance; he has nothing to say. Britten's art is rich in feeling and emotion; it speaks truth. Stravinsky's language is that of an educated sociopath's. Beneath the flawless exterior, it is empty.


In my experience, it's anything but empty. The incredible depth of works like Les Noces, Orpheus, Symphony of Psalms, Threni, Apollo, and so on may be masked by the technical perfection of the surface, but there's a good deal going on underneath.

I enjoy many of Britten's works, especially those including the voice. His operas are some of the best of the 20th century in any language. Some of his song cycles have an astounding radiance and beauty. But his instrumental works generally don't appeal to me very much, and I find the harmony of his works rather astringent in an uninteresting way, much as I do that of his good friend and colleague Shostakovich.

So while I don't have anything against Britten, per se, I see Stravinsky as one of the all-time greats.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Both are favorites of mine--two 20th giants. I don't have the need to pit one against the other. It might be easier to pick one over the other, if they were head-to-head contemporaries, and their work had similar structure. Britten was more the conformist in this regard. :tiphat:


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I've never made a poll before, but I'm dying to know whether people prefer Britten's elegy for solo viola or Stravinsky's.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Stravinsky is an exceptional craftsman but then so is Britten. To my ear, what Stravinsky's music lacks (notwithstanding the early ballets) is a soul. Beneath his beautiful, immaculate facades, there's nothing of substance; he has nothing to say. Britten's art is rich in feeling and emotion; it speaks truth. Stravinsky's language is that of an educated sociopath's. Beneath the flawless exterior, it is empty.


This is rather perfect (if anyone other than you and I care) because what I think and feel is the near perfect antithesis.

Whatever many perceive of Stravinsky as intellectual distance or facade still does not cover a composer for whom all music was visceral, highly spiritual, and 'emotionally deep' as well. I think with Britten their is something not only icier, but literally near to cut off where none of his music ever gets near the emotional or spiritual depths of the least of works by Stravinsky.

I always hear _lack of any direct communication_ with Britten, which leaves all his music, whatever the gestures, more 'on the outside looking in.' It is not as communicative as Stravinsky's because something is withheld or just absent in the first place. Ergo: It is Britten who is the craftsman who often says little or anything else except "clever craftsman," and who is a type of composer who calculatedly uses certain musical gestures knowing they will manipulate an audience toward a particular reaction. Some are o.k. with that, but I and others much prefer writing which most directly expresses and communicates, and I can not think of one Britten piece which is not 'emotionally blocked' in that sense I've described here.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

PetrB said:


> This is rather perfect (if anyone other than you and I care) because what I think and feel is the near perfect antithesis.
> Whatever many perceive of Stravinsky as intellectual distance or facade still does not cover a composer for whom all music was visceral, highly spiritual, and 'emotionally deep' as well. I think with Britten their is something not only icier, but literally near to cut off where none of his music ever gets near the emotional or spiritual depths of the least of works by Stravinsky.
> 
> I always hear _lack of any direct communication_ with Britten, which leaves all his music, whatever the gestures, more 'on the outside looking in.' It is not as communicative as Stravinsky's because something is withheld or just absent in the first place. Ergo: It is Britten who is the craftsman who often says little or anything else except "clever craftsman," and who is a type of composer who calculatedly uses certain musical gestures knowing they will manipulate an audience toward a particular reaction. Some are o.k. with that, but I and others much prefer the writing in such a way to actually express that feeling and communicate it, and I can not think of one Britten piece which is not 'emotionally blocked' in the way I've described here.


Did I mis-read? There are plenty of deep 'n communicative pieces from my already labeled, "Britten the conformist". War Requiem, Sinfonia da Requiem, Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge, String Quartets, Cello Suites, etc., etc. I would never do, but I'd be inclined to label Igor an iceman, before Ben. :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> I've never made a poll before, but I'm dying to know whether people prefer Britten's elegy for solo viola or Stravinsky's.


Do keep your poll virginity, my friend.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> In my experience, it's anything but empty. The incredible depth of works like Les Noces, Orpheus, Symphony of Psalms, Threni, Apollo, and so on may be masked by the technical perfection of the surface, but there's a good deal going on underneath.
> 
> I enjoy many of Britten's works, especially those including the voice. His operas are some of the best of the 20th century in any language. Some of his song cycles have an astounding radiance and beauty. But his instrumental works generally don't appeal to me very much, and I find the harmony of his works rather astringent in an uninteresting way, much as I do that of his good friend and colleague Shostakovich.
> 
> So while I don't have anything against Britten, per se, I see Stravinsky as one of the all-time greats.


I find his use of harmony astringent in an interesting way. But of course, this is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Vaneyes said:


> but I'd be inclined to label Igor an iceman, before Ben. :tiphat:


Or a mechanical nightingale, perhaps.

Still, I find Stravinsky's self-engagement in his works--though less obvious and extroverted than Britten's (who I love, incidentally)--to be intensely moving. I think they're both incredibly interesting and passionate composers. But perhaps in the end one must agree to disagree, albeit mildly.

*p.s.* Loving that Csaba recording you mentioned yesterday, Vaneyes.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> Or a mechanical nightingale, perhaps.
> 
> Still, I find Stravinsky's self-engagement in his works--though less obvious and extroverted than Britten's (who I love, incidentally)--to be intensely moving. I think they're both incredibly interesting and passionate composers. But perhaps in the end one must agree to disagree, albeit mildly.
> 
> *p.s.* Loving that Csaba recording you mentioned yesterday, Vaneyes.


Thanks, glad you enjoy Csaba et al.

Re Igor and Ben, yes, their greatness is most apparent. Igor has the bigger name of course. A titanic in the history books, that Ben will never come close to.

Re extrovert and introvert, if i had to, I'd lean toward Igor being the extrovert, and Ben as the introvert.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> Or a mechanical nightingale, perhaps.
> 
> Still, I find Stravinsky's self-engagement in his works--though less obvious and extroverted than Britten's (who I love, incidentally)--to be intensely moving. I think they're both incredibly interesting and passionate composers. But perhaps in the end one must agree to disagree, albeit mildly.
> 
> *p.s.* Loving that Csaba recording you mentioned yesterday, Vaneyes.


I do enjoy the work of both composers, with a preference for Britten, of course. What I cannot blindly accept is the establishment's propaganda which claims that Stravinsky is the best the 20th century has to offer. This is laughable when one considers his company: Stockhausen, Ligeti, Messiaen, Lutosławski, Xenakis, Carter, Bartok, and Britten.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I do enjoy the work of both composers, with a preference for Britten, of course. What I cannot blindly accept is the establishment's propaganda which claims that Stravinsky is the best the 20th century has to offer. This is laughable when one considers his company: Stockhausen, Ligeti, Messiaen, Lutosławski, Xenakis, Carter, Bartok, and Britten.


Yes, perhaps. But why are you so worried about such kind of things?, i.e., lists, rankings, etc... I couldn't care less. And if I think a composer is underrated, I simply try to promote his music by saying 'hey, this guy is good, listen to his music, I recommend it'. By promoting a composer through the denigration of another (and particularly if this another is an undisputed genius), then don't be surprised with what you get ...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I do enjoy the work of both composers, with a preference for Britten, of course. What I cannot blindly accept is the establishment's propaganda which claims that Stravinsky is the best the 20th century has to offer. This is laughable when one considers his company: Stockhausen, Ligeti, Messiaen, Lutosławski, Xenakis, Carter, Bartok, and Britten.


The Rite was a game-changer and everyone latched on and propagated. Igor kept his roll going for a relatively short period of time. Most of the rest of his life was based on rehash and self-promotion. It wasn't a progressively creative life, contrary to Ben's. The brunt of creativity was over pretty early. Hope that makes you feel better.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Vaneyes said:


> The Rite was a game-changer and everyone latched on and propagated. Igor kept his roll going for a relatively short period of time. Most of the rest of his life was based on rehash and self-promotion. It wasn't a progressively creative life, contrary to Ben's. The brunt of creativity was over pretty early. Hope that makes you feel better.


Thanks for the crumbs, Vanayes.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Yes, perhaps. But why are you so worried about such kind of things?, i.e., lists, rankings, etc... I couldn't care less. And if I think a composer is underrated, I simply try to promote his music by saying 'hey, this guy is good, listen to his music, I recommend it'. By promoting a composer through the denigration of another (and particularly if this another is an undisputed genius), then don't be surprised with what you get ...


These are the kinds of things that keep me up night. Yes, I have a hard life. Actually I don't know why I bother with such questions. I should just spend more time with my bible and shut my petty mouth.

:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> These are the kinds of things that keep me up night. Yes, I have a hard life. Actually I don't know why I bother with such questions. I should just spend more time with my bible and shut my petty mouth.
> 
> :tiphat:


I say, call 'em as you see 'em! Be honest and frank. So long as your views are the same as mine, everything will be just fine.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> These are the kinds of things that keep me up night. Yes, I have a hard life. Actually I don't know why I bother with such questions. I should just spend more time with my bible and shut my petty mouth.
> 
> :tiphat:


Do whatever you want. Don't expect me to take you seriously if you call Stravinsky's music 'souless crap', though. That's all I can say, really.

:tiphat: back at you.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Do whatever you want. Don't expect me to take you seriously if you call Stravinsky's music 'souless crap', though. That's all I can say, really.
> 
> :tiphat: back at you.


Creo que mis palabras fueron malinterpretadas. Lo que dije de callarme la boca y pasar mas tiempo con la Biblia fue en serio. Adicionalmente, nunca me referi a la musica de Stravinsky como basura y nunca lo haria.

_Took a lot of brain power to switch to Spanish but I did it!_


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Creo que mis palabras fueron malinterpretadas. Lo que dije the callarme la boca y pasar mas tiempo con la Biblia fue en serio. Adicionalmente, nunca me referi a la musica de Stravinsky como basura y nunca lo haria.
> 
> _Took a lot of brain power to switch to Spanish but I did it!_


Está bien, no hay problema. Yo me puse un poco susceptible también. Quizás, a veces es mejor simplemente escuchar la música que hablar de ella, ciertamente se evitarían algunas amarguras! En cualquier caso, me gusta tu estilo directo (en particular cuando está dirigido a los que hablan mal de la música contemporánea, jeje), buen gusto musical y las recomendaciones de cine. Saludos y nos vemos en el foro.


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

Sorry, back to "American" now.....

Yeah, comparing these two is like comparing Fred and Barney...what? I'm just getting into Britten and really digging what I'm hearing. I'm not sure why I never engaged in his world before - I guess I thought he was a real conservative and would bore me, but his music has a mysterious 'floating in outer space' vibe which is really unique and refreshing. 

I don't really listen to Stravinsky as much as I used to - not for any reason - just haven't. I really need to do a complete plunge in his catalog. Maybe this summer. Agon is one of my favorite IS pieces.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*A great article on Britten*

A fantastic read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/10453596/Benjamin-Britten-centenary-how-the-composer-proved-the-sneerers-wrong.html


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I do enjoy the work of both composers, with a preference for Britten, of course. What I cannot blindly accept is the establishment's propaganda which claims that Stravinsky is the best the 20th century has to offer. This is laughable when one considers his company: Stockhausen, Ligeti, Messiaen, Lutosławski, Xenakis, Carter, Bartok, and Britten.


Yes, but your failure to mention Debussy, Ravel and Ives among these 20th century greats seriously calls into question your ranking ability.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> This is rather perfect (if anyone other than you and I care) because what I think and feel is the near perfect antithesis.
> 
> Whatever many perceive of Stravinsky as intellectual distance or facade still does not cover a composer for whom all music was visceral, highly spiritual, and 'emotionally deep' as well. I think with Britten their is something not only icier, but literally near to cut off where none of his music ever gets near the emotional or spiritual depths of the least of works by Stravinsky.
> 
> I always hear _lack of any direct communication_ with Britten, which leaves all his music, whatever the gestures, more 'on the outside looking in.' It is not as communicative as Stravinsky's because something is withheld or just absent in the first place. Ergo: It is Britten who is the craftsman who often says little or anything else except "clever craftsman," and who is a type of composer who calculatedly uses certain musical gestures knowing they will manipulate an audience toward a particular reaction. Some are o.k. with that, *but I and others much prefer writing which most directly expresses and communicates*, and I can not think of one Britten piece which is not 'emotionally blocked' in that sense I've described here.


I'd have to agree with those who find Stravinsky the icier of the two, though aesthetically he ranks up with the very best no doubt, (perhaps the very best) but I've always thought in terms of emotional content he is a weaker composer. I don't find the same blockage you've described in most of Britten's works, though perhaps some. The ironic thing about the part in bold is that Stravinsky himself thought that music itself doesn't communicate anything, maybe that is exactly why so many seem to find his music devoid of much inner content.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

You should really correct your other thread that directly contradicts some of your points here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> I'd have to agree with those who find Stravinsky the icier of the two, though aesthetically he ranks up with the very best no doubt, (perhaps the very best) but I've always thought in terms of emotional content he is a weaker composer. I don't find the same blockage you've described in most of Britten's works, though perhaps some. The ironic thing about the part in bold is that Stravinsky himself thought that music itself doesn't communicate anything, maybe that is exactly why so many seem to find his music devoid of much inner content.


This pretty well speaks for me and, I think, quite a few others. A couple of musically aware friends and I feel that after his spectacular, popular early works Stravinsky's brain began to dominate his heart, and that his "neo-classical" works show mainly that cleverness can reach the the level of genius. I can enjoy some of these works on the level of intellectual fascination but few of them on the level of emotional gratification; I can be entertained, impressed, sometimes touched, but rarely much moved. This is perfectly fine with me, as I don't look for the same things to enjoy in every work or composer. I also gather that some people find his music more emotive than I do. I do have to wonder about Stravinsky's own statements (which I can't quote here; maybe someone else can) which seem to deny, or downgrade, the expressive function of music. That whole early 20th-century, French-centered, "aesthetic" approach to art, with its "art for art's sake" and "neo-" this or that, seems to me to pervade much of Stravinsky's output, as it does the art of Picasso, Braque, Mondrian, etc. I find it antipathetic and rather chilly on the whole.

Britten is likewise a composer of extraordinary imagination and craftsmanship, and I have stronger, more personal emotional reactions to him, which I presume he, more than Stravinsky, intended. I like some of his works very much (largely opera, song, and choral), but some others feel willfully eccentric, and still others just leave me cold. On the whole I don't feel I understand him very well, but there's an inward intensity and a strange magic about him that draws me in and makes me want to know him better. With Stravinsky I am impressed but less absorbed; there isn't much mystery: what you hear is what you get. On this latter ground I have to say, without trying to be "diplomatic," that I think Britten is a composer of an intrinsic merit comparable to that of Stravinsky.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Maybe academia rates Stravinsky as one of the best of the 20th century. But surely among the populous, all post-Rite works are dearly underrated. 

This whole "head vs. heart" thing falls on deaf ears for myself. I don't see them as being too much in conflict. It takes a good deal of "head" to know what will be emotionally affective for audiences.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> A fantastic read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/10453596/Benjamin-Britten-centenary-how-the-composer-proved-the-sneerers-wrong.html


Almost no one here had anything bad to say about Britten other than that he wasn't as good as good as Stravinsky.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

Britten and Stravinsky are different from each other.

Each wrote many pieces, which are also different from each other.

They weren't trying to do the same things. They didn't do the same things.

That's it. There is no other thing.

Ranking is for when people are attempting to do the same thing--waiting tables, for instance. I have a favorite server, for instance. It's easy. All servers are attempting to do the same things, so are easy to rank. My favorite is the best at doing the things that servers do. Sports figures the same.

But artists? Naw. That's way different.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> Almost no one here had anything bad to say about Britten other than that he wasn't as good as good as Stravinsky.


What's your point. The article is well written and I thought most would enjoy it.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> What's your point. The article is well written and I thought most would enjoy it.


Did you read the title of the article?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

If forced to rank with a gun to my head, I would put Stravinsky above Britten, but I like both. A number of years ago, in one of his New Yorkers essays, Andrew Porter said something that made me think a little differently about Britten. In comparing him with countryman Michael Tippett, Porter said something like that the difference between the two was like someone who aimed for the moon and hit it every time (Britten) vs. someone who aimed for the stars and mostly missed. He came out on the side of ambition, but I always think of his characterization of Britten's facility.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> Did you read the title of the article?


Did you read the article and if so, did you enjoy it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Did you read the article and if so, did you enjoy it?


I tend to not read "Home boy did good" articles about composers whose work I already know of as being pretty great -- because there will be no 'news' in that sort of article. I.e. if you know of Britten and his works for some time, a recent "Home Boy Does Good" centenary hommage article is going to come off like a Sunday magazine puff piece.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> Maybe academia rates Stravinsky as one of the best of the 20th century. But surely among the populous, all post-Rite works are dearly underrated.
> 
> This whole "head vs. heart" thing falls on deaf ears for myself. I don't see them as being too much in conflict. It takes a good deal of "head" to know what will be emotionally affective for audiences.


Violadude, I have to take exception to some of what you say here - not with your personal preferences (though you don't really say how you feel about these two composers) but with a couple of your premises.

You seem to be saying that the general music-listening public considerably "underrates" all of Stravinsky's music after _The Rite __of Spring_ - and I assume by this you mean that on its merits the music deserves to be valued more by these listeners than it is. But I wouldn't presume to make such a claim - to say, that is, whether Stravinsky is overrated or underrated by either the musically educated or the general public. Certainly his post-Rite work as a whole is more esteemed by the former than it is liked by the latter; that's easily observed and to prove it we need only take a poll. But in my view both the "academic" judgment and the popular judgment have validity. The former might say "Stravinsky's originality, diversity, craftsmanship, and influence on modern music are unparalleled, and by these criteria I consider him probably the greatest composer of the 20th century"; the latter might say (or at least feel) "I want to be emotionally involved by music the way Bach or Beethoven or Mahler or Barber involves me, and most of Stravinsky's music doesn't do that for me, so I can't think of him as one of the greatest composers." We might say that the former judgment is more valid because it is more "objective" than the latter, but only if we regard complete "objectivity" as possible or desirable and consider emotional responses to works of art as arbitrary, meaningless, and irrelevant in judging their quality. Some do claim to take this position, but if we try to adhere to it consistently we end up having either to abandon it or to give up making significant other-than-technical artistic judgments altogether - which, as any artist knows, would make the very creation of art impossible.

I think it would be correct to say that Stravinsky is neither overrated by academics nor underrated by the general classical music loving public (I put it that way to eliminate the wider public that neither knows anything nor cares about classical music). These groups may simply be using different, but equally legitimate, criteria in evaluating him. What might be more permissible to suggest is that if a given listener understood Stravinsky's music better from a theoretical standpoint he would appreciate it more and might get more pleasure out of it. (But of course that could be said of classical music in general. Classical music on the whole is "underrated" by the public!) However, that is merely a theoretical possibility, and doesn't imply that greater knowledge must or ought to lead to greater liking.

As a musician and student of music, I find Stravinsky a brilliantly original and accomplished composer and one of the greatest of the 20th century (I see no need to choose an absolute "greatest" anything outside of a racetrack). However, I find that much of his music exhibits a cool aestheticism and a self-conscious cleverness which, as a music lover with personal tastes, I am not much attracted to, and so I do not often care to listen to Stravinsky. My estimate of Stravinsky's virtues is not an overrating; neither is my lack of interest in listening to him an underrating. And this division within my own judgments appears to me to correspond rather neatly to the division between the "academic" and the "popular" views of his "neo-classical" and later work.

My response to Stravinsky might be the kind of intellectual/emotional duality you call "this head vs. heart" thing, which I gather you don't experience with regard to his music. I would be surprised, though, if there were not some music that you find intellectually impressive, or recognize as great, but don't care much for - or, conversely, music you can't make great artistic claims for but simply love listening to. I think most "popular" music throughout the ages has fallen into the latter category, and that a great deal of such music - music which vast numbers of people love and are moved by - required rather little "head" in its creation and requires virtually none to appreciate and enjoy. This is the other side of the head-heart duality represented by the academic/popular (and many people's personal) response to Stravinsky's, and other, music, which a given listener may find more admirable for its technical qualities than actually engaging on a subjective level. What I'm saying, essentially, is that I think the "head vs. heart thing" really does arise for most people in their experience of music, as it inevitably arises in their experience of life.

Have I misunderstood anything you were saying?


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

Is dualism appropriate is the question at issue, however.

Is there intellectual music and emotional music? Are there intellectual listeners and emotional listeners?

I'd say that those two words don't account either for music or for listening to music in any comprehensive or nuanced way. That is, there are not only lots of other things going on in this situation, but intellectual and emotional are not separate or separable.

Now everyone go listen to those three very popular "neo-classical" symphonies before posting any more about "intellectual" and "emotional."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

some guy said:


> Is dualism appropriate is the question at issue, however.
> 
> Is there intellectual music and emotional music? Are there intellectual listeners and emotional listeners?
> 
> ...


The subject of intellect versus emotion in music comes up, in my experience, whenever discussions of Stravinsky get under way. If I'm not mistaken, Igor made a few provocative remarks about it himself. He did enjoy being provocative. Very French of him.

I don't know that anyone has stated (I know I haven't, at least) that any particular work of music "is" either "intellectual' or "emotional," or asserted that it can be one of these things to the exclusion of the other, but merely that these two basic human functions are in play in varying states of interaction and proportion in the creation and perception of all works of art. This doesn't pretend to be a comprehensive and nuanced description of music or of the perception of it. It doesn't have to be. Listeners quite commonly perceive the difference between being fascinated by perceptual qualities and formal relationships and being moved, even though these things are happening together and even though it's just those qualities and relationships that are responsible for their feelings.

In the same way, there are very definitely "intellectual" and "emotional" listeners, and they are often coexistent in the same person listening to the same piece of music, registering perceptual qualities and formal relationships with certain parts of the brain and experiencing bodily sensations, moods, emotions, associations, etc. with other parts, shifting back and forth between different states of awareness. No radical dualism such as you suggest is implied. But, again, not all these faculties are employed equally, or are consciously attended to, at all times; and certain people are by temperament or other individual disposition inclined to employ them unequally, in either direction.

I see nothing strange in the notion that a particular person may have a predominantly intellectual response to a particular work of music and experience little or no emotion, while he may have a powerful emotional response to a different work which hardly engages his mind in any other way. This may not be a nuanced or comprehensive description of what happens in an act of listening, but it's one which most people who listen to a range of music will readily recognize.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Violadude, I have to take exception to some of what you say here - not with your personal preferences (though you don't really say how you feel about these two composers) but with a couple of your premises.
> 
> You seem to be saying that the general music-listening public considerably "underrates" all of Stravinsky's music after _The Rite __of Spring_ - and I assume by this you mean that on its merits the music deserves to be valued more by these listeners than it is. But I wouldn't presume to make such a claim - to say, that is, whether Stravinsky is overrated or underrated by either the musically educated or the general public. Certainly his post-Rite work as a whole is more esteemed by the former than it is liked by the latter; that's easily observed and to prove it we need only take a poll. But in my view both the "academic" judgment and the popular judgment have validity. The former might say "Stravinsky's originality, diversity, craftsmanship, and influence on modern music are unparalleled, and by these criteria I consider him probably the greatest composer of the 20th century"; the latter might say (or at least feel) "I want to be emotionally involved by music the way Bach or Beethoven or Mahler or Barber involves me, and most of Stravinsky's music doesn't do that for me, so I can't think of him as one of the greatest composers." We might say that the former judgment is more valid because it is more "objective" than the latter, but only if we regard complete "objectivity" as possible or desirable and consider emotional responses to works of art as arbitrary, meaningless, and irrelevant in judging their quality. Some do claim to take this position, but if we try to adhere to it consistently we end up having either to abandon it or to give up making significant other-than-technical artistic judgments altogether - which, as any artist knows, would make the very creation of art impossible.
> 
> ...


Well, I simply meant to say that I've heard more than enough times that Stravinsky pooped out after the Rite, and it's an opinion I definitely don't share. I think his music is both intellectually and emotionally engaging all throughout his career. Even if some of his pieces are merely "self-consciously clever", as you put it, I still find it emotionally engaging. When a piece is clever, it puts a smile on my face. Is that not an emotional experience? Also, the rhythmic drive of most of his music inspires a certain emotion in me. It's not a specific emotion really, but it's just the kind of "driving energetic" feeling that you experience in your gut. Just a few examples of the emotional effect later Stravinsky works have on me.

And to answer your question about the head vs. heart thing, no I have never heard a work that was intellectually stimulating that was not also emotionally stimulating. I have however, heard music that was emotionally stimulating but not intellectually stimulating in the slightest (music from Korean Dramas, for example).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> Well, I simply meant to say that I've heard more than enough times that Stravinsky pooped out after the Rite, and it's an opinion I definitely don't share. I think his music is both intellectually and emotionally engaging all throughout his career. Even if some of his pieces are merely "self-consciously clever" as you put it I still find it emotionally engaging. When a piece is clever, it puts a smile on my face. Is that not an emotional experience. Also, the rhythmic drive of most of his music inspires a certain emotion in me. It's not a specific emotion really, but it's just the kind of "driving energetic" feeling that you experience in your gut. Just a few examples of the emotional effect later Stravinsky works have on me.
> 
> And to answer your question about the head vs. heart thing, no I have never heard a work that was intellectually stimulating that was not also emotionally stimulating. I have however, heard music that was emotionally stimulating but not intellectually stimulating in the slightest (music from Korean Dramas, for example).


I surmised from your first post that you liked Stravinsky, and wasn't questioning that at all. Perhaps I made too much out of your assertion that, compared with academics' high estimate of him, the general listening public underrates him. I was trying to explain why I disagreed with that by questioning the criteria such a statement assumes.

You clearly have wide-ranging musical awareness and sympathies. I'm sure mine were never as wide, so all I can do is...:tiphat:


----------

