Customer Discussions > classical music discussion forum

Best of .... Stravinsky


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 51 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 20 Dec 2013 19:14:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Dec 2013 19:25:06 GMT
enthusiast says:
The 20th Century saw "the tradition" branch out into lots of strands. There is just so much variety - it's wonderful. It started in the late 19th Century with Brahms and Wagner arguing about where to take music and with all sorts of nationalists in different countries. But then it went really wild. It was an incredibly fertile time.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Dec 2013 19:36:26 GMT
Edgar Self says:
Even more thanks, Geoffrey. My regard for "Four Norwegian Modes/Moods/Nodes grows by leaps and bounds. Maestro Boulez is now old and ailing, and has moderated many of his earlier views recently, even on Shostakovich, as a friend reported to me last year after conversations with him.

The only time I had a dchance to talk to Boulez, after he had conducted Schoenberg's "Moses and Aron" on his birthday with my nephew singing five small roles that alll together made one small role, much to her confusion he spent the whole time talking to my wife, much to her confusion, while I talked to Chris Merritt and Pittman-Jennings who sang the title roles. The final sopeech of Moses made a great impression.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Dec 2013 05:40:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Dec 2013 05:42:22 GMT
JayJayDee says:
Well I'll repeat it so all those pathetic button-pushers who vote negatively against something with which they disagree, can do so again...

Thank God it (music in the 20th century) wasn't forced to follow only the line of thought suggested by the Second Viennese School! Stravinsky appears to have added a rhythmic urgency and a link to ancient Russia, that has benefited twentieth century music just as much as did Mahler..

Thank God music in the 20th century wasn't forced to follow *only* the line of thought suggested by the Second Viennese School.

Thank God music in the 20th century wasn't forced to follow *ONLY* the line of thought suggested by the Second Viennese School.

Get it !!!!

Stravinsky needs to be credited for adding a divergent dimension, without which composers like Messiaen and many of the South American composers might have felt otherwise constrained.

Posted on 21 Dec 2013 09:11:34 GMT
Bruce says:
I do hear an influence of Stravinsky in Messiaen's large scale orchestral works - but not in his chamber or piano/organ pieces - which feel like they are totally original.

Posted on 23 Dec 2013 08:04:30 GMT
JayJayDee says:
But surely we don't expect subsequent artists/composers to be enslaved by past masters. Only inspired. And then to move on.
I like Stravinsky's E Flat Symphony largely because of its lyrical nature. It showed that he was quite capable of writing yet another symphony like Tchaikovsky, Glazunov or Kalinnikov. But then he (Stravinsky) moved on.
To allow the six negatives to repeat their obsession I will re-phrase my point that Stravinsky needs to be credited, perhaps above all else, for adding an extra rhythmic dimension to twentieth century music, and that it is fortunate that we were not led solely down the trail into the Second Viennese Woods.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2013 16:19:37 GMT
enthusiast says:
And he freed us from the excesses of Romanticism. And he reminded us that there are many ways to explore the potential of a simple chord.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Dec 2013 17:58:19 GMT
Bruce says:
You have been credited with enough negs to put you out of sight again! ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Dec 2013 01:36:08 GMT
JayJayDee says:
Invasion of the self-abusers, Bruce.
They have nothing better to do!

Alternatively:
More evidence that Stravinsky arouses extreme responses!

I do hope it doesn't represent a forum-takeover by the Second Viennese School!

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Dec 2013 16:00:22 GMT
scarecrow says:
this negative "voters" are odious cowards, I hear you Jay Jay Dee. . .
"negative voters"
show your face! express your views!, that's the trouble, They have No views !!.
So ''negative-votes-away'',
a form of masturbation really. . .press on press on, perhaps into a tissue suits you better. . . .

Posted on 30 Dec 2013 13:38:13 GMT
JayJayDee says:
Perfect example given there scarecrow.
Seven negative votes but no single view expressed.
A famous work (some say lifetime's work) by Salvador Dali comes to mind.

I can't believe there are actually 9 out of 16 readers who prefer the line taken by The Second Viennese School to the options opened up by Igor!

Posted on 30 Dec 2013 16:01:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Dec 2013 16:03:29 GMT
Anonymouse says:
Generally, the idea that the second Viennese school was the one direction of the twentieth century is held only by members of the classical audience who don't listen to much twentieth century music.

It was one direction, and it was enormously influential. It was picked up by other composers in a way that no other direction was picked up. Stravinsky didn't found a "school," nor did Varese, nor did Stockhausen. Cage came the closest to that, probably, but even there. And neither Cage nor Schoenberg wanted to have started any "schools." There's irony for ya.

Anyway, I have some words of wisdom for scarecrow, as I too think that Stravinsky's "The Rake's Progress" is a terrible mistake and a huge waste of talent. But I have several musician friends who get a great deal of pleasure from it. Friends whose opinions I respect and sometimes even admire.

So here are the words: the situation with music consists of the notes that the composers write and the sounds that the performers produce AND the responses that the listeners make. All of those things are part and parcel of the whole situation. To say that any piece--however distasteful to you--is in and of itself a bad thing is to ignore (at least for the moment) the listener.

If a listener can have a good experience with a piece, then there has been a good experience. And I, for one, no longer want to argue with good experiences. They may not be the experiences I would have, but so what? I get good experiences from noise bands. Most classical listeners think noise is anathema--noise as a concept and as a genre. But there's my experience. And it's good. Do I abandon my experience because so many classical listeners think noise is crap?

No.

Neither should I want anyone who has a good experience with "The Rake's Progress" to deny that experience (or even with Einaudi or Rieu, though it gags me to have to say it :-))! But so what? My gagging is not evidence of anything except my tastes. And my tastes are no more than that. Mine.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Dec 2013 16:18:05 GMT
enthusiast says:
It seems pompous to me to be reluctant to speak your mind about a piece of music, Anon. Say what you think and let others say what they think. Why not? And who knows? Maybe an illuminating discussion will come out of it.

And isn't this also the way to move on from this silly voting? Some people may not feel confident expressing their views but we all have the right to an opinion. And we can all change our minds, too. But what is the point of this forum if we follow the advice to withhold our opinions?

Posted on 30 Dec 2013 17:34:26 GMT
Anonymouse says:
enthusiast,

Where did all that come from? For one, I'm not reluctant at all to speak my mind about a piece of music. I just was noting that the whole situation is larger than just those notes of that piece. It's a complex and dynamic situation. (And I'm not at all reluctant to say just that.)

For two, where does "pompous" come from? To be reluctant, about anything, doesn't coincide with any meaning of "pompous" that I'm aware of. Make words mean whatever you want, but do let us know when you're making a new meaning.

For three, where's the "not letting?" I'm not in a position to let or not let. (And, just by the way, since you're trying to change the way I speak-- :-O --neither do you!)

For four, why do "some people" get to not feel confident but I don't get to? Or not without being labeled "pompous." So are those "some people" equally pompous with myself? What gives? :-)

And for five, the "right" to an opinion is neither here nor there. An opinion is something to support or to defend, not just to state. And if someone states an opinion without supporting it, then the other participants have every "right" (and perhaps even obligation) to ask for that support.

I, just for the record, never advised anyone to withhold their opinion.

Posted on 30 Dec 2013 17:41:11 GMT
JayJayDee says:
Four cheers for those, above, who are 'adding to the discussion' and not merely pressing a 'No' Button

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Dec 2013 20:48:08 GMT
enthusiast says:
Forgive me if my words were a bit strong or abrupt, Anon. But I don't think we will profit from a phrase by phrase analysis of my off the cuff remarks. I think if you read my first paragraph (the one that responds to you) again you will find the simple point it makes to be quite clear - let's not hold back from saying what we like and don't like and let's welcome others who disagree to express their views too.

I myself enjoy and value The Rake's Progress but I found scarecrow's observations about it to be very interesting and illuminating.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Dec 2013 13:21:27 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Dec 2013 13:30:22 GMT
scarecrow says:
Well poor Igor
we caught him in late- career when things certainly dried up, "Rake's Progress" is neo-classic,a known realm for him; Igor was a great purveyor of materials, but his genius had fathomed great moments there in a known realm hiding his subjectivity . . .something he thought Americans love to do, Be hidden within the code of cultural regimes someplace on the "Food Chain". .
Igor knew how to rubble thru the crust with dignity, gentleness, and genius,
In "Rake's Progress"however none of those virtues are present. . .Again living in Los Angeles the Entertainment capital, Well Do what the place does best, "entertain", jump thru the hoop of recognition. . . he needed something to do, and we shouldn't neglect our aged septuagenarians . . . .I prefer the music that came in latter, the"Mouvements for Piano & Orch."and cantatas, the "Requiem Canticles", '' Abraham and Isaac'', showing he loved both sides of the Judeo-Christian universe,or is it simply one universe. . . We are a divisive lot. . .

Posted on 31 Dec 2013 20:57:07 GMT
JayJayDee says:
....Igor knew how to rubble thru the crust with dignity, gentleness, and genius,...

A wonderful turn of phrase, scarecrow. But how can two people not think that this adds to the discussion?

Posted on 1 Jan 2014 10:50:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jan 2014 10:50:54 GMT
Well, in fairness to those people Scarecrow's diffuse "stream of consciousness" posting style is frequently rather hard to follow.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jan 2014 21:01:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jan 2014 21:04:08 GMT
scarecrow says:
I throw up my arms Jay Jay Dee, I bow Harry Callahan in my defense. . . thank you. .

By now frequenters to this exalted Forum should be exposed to modernist twist of convoluted variegated phrase, stream of this or that, To and Fro, Twist N' Snap,Fluff N' Fragrance . . . . . . . those round us would have some exposure to this content. Nada, dal niente. . . ?
I write coherently,
Yes! Not always recognized by this fine astute population ;I write for cause,affects, rhetorical when necessary,opinionated when Truth is trampled, and on the embankment confrontational when the sword is drawn against me. . . as , otherwise I'd tend to my garden. . . look in on the soup brewing. . .wave to the Post-Person. . .

Posted on 2 Jan 2014 09:14:24 GMT
Anonymouse says:
"I write coherently."

Nope.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2014 14:36:15 GMT
scarecrow says:
OK, acknowledged,
I intend to languish in my current state of quasi-incomprehensibility; to remain as is, like Tonality I refuse to develop. . .

But I taek your "Nope" Anonymouse as a compliment, TnX. . .

Posted on 2 Jan 2014 14:52:48 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jan 2014 14:54:42 GMT
Bruce says:
Does music develop by becoming more incoherent? I would say the opposite. Development is clear and concise.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2014 17:26:15 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jan 2014 17:39:15 GMT
JayJayDee says:
Surely it was meant only as a complement.

As we used to joke back in 1968: These negative voters will be the first to go after the revolution.
But that was before Andre Rieu reincarnated Mantovani

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Was Stravinsky saying that with his neo-classical phase.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jan 2014 17:36:24 GMT
JayJayDee says:
I was not aware that anyone on this forum had ever stated that twentieth century music followed solely the second viennese school. But I would go so far as to say that we are damned fortunate that it was not made compulsory. Many British composers were so-derided as being reactionary.

Posted on 2 Jan 2014 19:30:41 GMT
Anonymouse says:
Hmmm. Some British composers complained that they were being derided.

That's not quite the same as many were derided.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the classical music discussion forum (1018 discussions)

 

This discussion

Participants:  14
Total posts:  51
Initial post:  18 Dec 2013
Latest post:  2 Jan 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions