# Damn Shostakovich could write some kick a$$ music!



## dcoscina (May 7, 2010)

I just finished my Sibelius binge (composer not notation software) and now I have moved onto the symphonies of Dmitri Shostakovich. I never really had heard much outside his 5th, 7th, and 12th so imagine my delight when I picked up the complete symphonies series conducted by Bernard Haitink and put on the first mvmt of the 10th Symphony. Honestly gents, this guy could write propulsive action music like nobody's business. I love how he uses the symphonic structure too. the one thing I really admire in his earlier symphonies is that it already bore the stamp of his own style. Early Bartok sounds like Strauss. Early Sibelius sounds like...well Strauss and even some Schumann. Early Prokofiev sounds like...well he was alway a whack job but you you get the idea.

I understand why someone like James Horner has been inspired by Shostakovich's music when he approaches a film score. It's very dramatic, visually inspired music. It always tells a story. One thing I get a little tired of is how a lot of people equate classical music with background dinner music. Shostakovich's symphonies reach for the listeners balls and hold on tight making sure you're sure as hell taking notice. You cannot play this in the background of tea time. It would even get old bitties up and knocking each other off their walkers! Okay, that's probably too much of an exaggeration but I'm totally enthused by what I'm hearing (and a little embaressed that it took this long to get into all of his symphonies).

Haitink is a great interpretor. I fell in love with his reading of Shosty's 12th Symphony after I heard that first mvmt paired with a print of Eisenstein's OCTOBER. The music beautifully matched the frenetic pacing of Eisenstein's feverish montage style. 

Awesome stuff guys. No offense to living composers but they just don't write music like this. But then again, it would probably get tossed off of a film by gutless wankers who can only digest 2 chord progressions in a song.


----------



## Narval (May 7, 2010)

A Shostakovich love thread, what a great idea!

The 10th? I find the 2nd mov. breathtaking: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZbJOE9zNjw


----------



## dcoscina (May 7, 2010)

Sorry, I actually meant the 2nd mvmt. Gosh that is really kick butt music. Bold, invigorating, tough music. I love it!


----------



## alphonse (May 7, 2010)

Octobre my favorit film music with Prokofiev alexandre Nevsky >8o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sc9fRyJ ... re=related Symphony n12 revolutionary petrograd o=<


----------



## Leon Willett (May 8, 2010)

My favourite is the savage 2nd movement to his 4th symphony  fast and savage!


----------



## RiffWraith (May 8, 2010)

Narval @ Sat May 08 said:


> A Shostakovich love thread, what a great idea!
> 
> The 10th? I find the 2nd mov. breathtaking:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZbJOE9zNjw



*Awesome!*

It's kinda (and this is just my personal way to describe it) halfway between classical, and film score music. It has elements of both - _is_ both, and at the same time is neither.

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Narval (May 8, 2010)

This theme, imo, would have fit so well The Lord of the Rings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab2FB_dyG-k


----------



## P.T. (May 30, 2010)

A bit OT, but this is a wonderful performance of a very moving Shostacovich string quartet. By students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk-Qh3bAOeY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtNR1UET ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuIs9GW4 ... re=related


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

OK, I will be the skunk at the picnic.

Shostakovich was indeed a fine composer but perhaps because he was over the length of his career limited by government fiat as to what he could and could not write, his music seldom broke new ground, just further mined ground explored by even more talented guys.

I mean when you consider he was writing roughly at the same time as Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Webern, Ravel, Charles Ives, and after Mahler, it is all pretty tame stuff.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

Shosty is the real stuff, the funnest (while serious) music to play by an orchestra, and I include all composers.


----------



## handz (May 30, 2010)

There was great Shostakovich thread about year ago. 

Yeah the fact that he was limited by the comunist goverment had negatvie impact on some of his works.

He was undoubtably one of the most inovative composers and have his very distinct style. 

I heard all of his symphonies many times but I must say that my favorite one is the First! It was his graduation work and it have so much of fresh ideas, themes and moods. I love it and recommend.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

handz @ Sun May 30 said:


> He was undoubtably one of the most inovative composers



See, that is particularly what I take issue with. In what way was he even close to as "innovative" compared to the contemporaries and even predecessors I named?


----------



## nikolas (May 30, 2010)

Well nor Pokofiev, neither Mahler were particularly innovtive. Perhaps Bartok (a bit earlier), was having his own voice, but that, again, is not labeled innovative by any means... If you wanna talk innovation at that time, or around that time, speak about Schoenberg, Ives, Cage (a bit later), etc... 

About Shosty: Yup I love a few of his stuff, I total adore a few of his stuff, but I think I'll side with Jay here... He seems to be repeating himself a lot, pulling the same tricks all the time with very little variation. Prokofiev was far more advanced I think...


----------



## handz (May 30, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:


> handz @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > He was undoubtably one of the most inovative composers
> ...




I have said ONE of the... not ONLY ONE, Sorry but for example Mahler was great composer but his "sound" is absolutely classical. Yes Schoenbergs modernistic works, Alban Berg etc those are another story. 

You recognize Shostakovichs work even if you dont know it because of his style. I dont know if he was too much repeating - its more that his style is very personal in contrast to other composers who were more traditional in writing.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

handz @ Sun May 30 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > handz @ Sun May 30 said:
> ...



Once again, I think he was talented, but not innovative compared to many others, even tonal composers like Prokofiev, Ravel, Debussy, etc..

Which is fine.


----------



## handz (May 30, 2010)

I think that he was, he have his own style, Debussy, Ravel, Ducas... They were Impressionists and some of their work is very similar in fact.


----------



## castaliamusic (May 30, 2010)

nikolas @ Sun May 30 said:


> Well nor Pokofiev, neither Mahler were particularly innovtive. Perhaps Bartok (a bit earlier), was having his own voice, but that, again, is not labeled innovative by any means... If you wanna talk innovation at that time, or around that time, speak about Schoenberg, Ives, Cage (a bit later), etc...
> 
> About Shosty: Yup I love a few of his stuff, I total adore a few of his stuff, but I think I'll side with Jay here... He seems to be repeating himself a lot, pulling the same tricks all the time with very little variation. Prokofiev was far more advanced I think...




Yes, but Shostakovich was a prolific composer (15 symphonies, 15 string quartets...), where Schoenberg, Ives, etc... wrote very little music compared to him. Imagine if Schoenberg wrote 20 works similar to Verklärte Nacht...

IMO Shostakovich simply enjoyed being a composer, he was not interested to be an avantgarde artist


----------



## Narval (May 30, 2010)

Yes, I too think Shostakovitch is heavily underestimated, albeit at the loss of his underestimators, so to speak.

I also agree with the comparing bit. Comparing composers in a negative way - "this was less innovative than that, more limited, etc." - is a completely meaningless undertake imo. You either enjoy that music, or you don't. You are either able to see the elegant intricacies of a piece, or you are unable. It's really simple. Express your inabilities at your own risk.

To address another clichéd point that creates so much misunderstanding about Shostakovitch: that he was limited by the political establishment. Imho, the political pressures have had a positive effect on Shostakovitch's works, in hindsight. He started off as yet another formalist avantgardist elitist smarty pants, and was quickly forced to find an accessible way to express his ideas. And he has succeeded to come up with a brilliantly original combination between content and expression. Except for Mozart, I can think of no other composer that has fooled to such extent his audience into listening to intelligent and profound music while taking it so lightly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSbX6o3Z ... re=related


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 30 said:


> I also agree with the comparing bit. Comparing composers in a negative way - "this was less innovative than that, more limited, etc." - is a completely meaningless undertake imo. You either enjoy that music, or you don't. You are either able to see the elegant intricacies of a piece, or you are unable. It's really simple. Express your inabilities at your own risk.



On one level that is true, but on another it is not. I can separate what I enjoy from its greatness. I don't enjoy everything that is undeniably great and I like some stuff that is clearly not.

The idea that I like it /don't like it = it is great/not great implies that there are no empirical standards, which is not so.

For instance, personally I would rather listen to Poulenc than Wagner but I would be foolish to maintain that Poulenc was as important a contributor.

Similarly, one can prefer listening to Shosty to Stravinsky but one would be foolish to maintain that he was as important a contributor.


----------



## nikolas (May 30, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 30 said:


> I also agree with the comparing bit. Comparing composers in a negative way - "this was less innovative than that, more limited, etc." - is a completely meaningless undertake imo. You either enjoy that music, or you don't. You are either able to see the elegant intricacies of a piece, or you are unable. It's really simple. Express your inabilities at your own risk.


You can enjoy the music and also find that it's not the best masterpiece of the whole world, can't you? I do enjoy my daily take of lady Gaga, but that is not to say that I cannot speak of the tracks, or offer 'feedback' (not to her, nor to Shosty, who has been dead for a long time now...).

Why is it that when people offer an opinion, other than "I (don't) like it", based on a little more analysis that it seems comparison, negative, etc...

Jay mentioned innovation and mentioned a few composers. There's no way to compare composers in any rate, but for a very specific part or point in composing (for example pianistic writing), it's not, I think, unreasonable to mention that someone's writing is more complex, or more innovate, etc, than someone else's. This is not negative, nor reducing anything. It's just a little pub talk, that's all...


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

Why are people so afraid of judgement's on dead composers?

I will say it flat out, whether you enjoy him less or more, Stravinsky is a greater and more important composer than Shostakovich.

I enjoy Herman's Hermits records more than I enjoy Creedence Clearwater Revival but clearly CCR is a greater and more important pop/rock group than Herman's Hermits.

Enjoyment is one thing, evaluation of artistic merit is another. I like it does NOT equal it is good.


----------



## nikolas (May 30, 2010)

Academically speaking, in order to define 'better' you need to define 'in which area'. Cause it could very well be that someone is better in composition, while someone else is better at orchestration and so on... For example it does appear that mussorgsky was considered a 'better' composer, while Korsakof a better orchestrator (which has resulted in piano works of Mussorgsky being orchestrated by Korsakof, Ravel and others...).

It's difficult to speak about greatness, perhaps a little less difficult to talk about importance, and certainly less difficult to talk about innovation...


----------



## José Herring (May 30, 2010)

Jay I agree with you to an extent. A lot of Shostakovich's orchestral stuff is pretty tame compared to his contemporaries. But, you have to keep in mind that he was writing in a communist era with the damn commies trying to dictate his every note. If he went to far out they literally threatened him. Because the orchestra cost a lot of money and was state supported he wrote as best he could given the fact that Stalin threatened his career almost after every concert that wasn't pro-military.

On the other hand if you listen to his more personal chamber music you'll find a wealth of stuff. Don't know how adventurous it is, but there's a lot of deep personal sentiment and clearly a keen musical mind at work. Every bit as keep as any of his musical contemporaries.

Just take a listen to this. The harmonic and thematic facility is constantly inspiring to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvTTfbpWjY


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun May 30 said:


> Jay I agree with you to an extent. A lot of Shostakovich's orchestral stuff is pretty tame compared to his contemporaries. But, you have to keep in mind that he was writing in a communist era with the damn commies trying to dictate his every note. If he went to far out they literally threatened him. Because the orchestra cost a lot of money and was state supported he wrote as best he could given the fact that Stalin threatened his career almost after every concert that wasn't pro-military.
> 
> On the other hand if you listen to his more personal chamber music you'll find a wealth of stuff. Don't know how adventurous it is, but there's a lot of deep personal sentiment and clearly a keen musical mind at work. Every bit as keep as any of his musical contemporaries.
> 
> ...



I know that and I said that in my first post.

Regardless, it leads logically to the conclusion that while he was indeed a fine composer, he is not an important one.


----------



## nikolas (May 30, 2010)

But how is one measuring the importance of a composer? If in a forum, full of composers (vi-control) the name Shostakovich is met 99% more frequently than that of... Stockhausen, can we really ditch Shostakovich as less important? Less innovative maybe (especially when having Stockhausen in the same sentence), less avant garde by all means, but less important?

Isn't importance also counted by the impact in the rest of the world? It seems to me that over here and in general in all film music forums I frequent, Stravinsky's name (let alone Boulez) is more seldom met than that of Shostakovich...

Maybe this is what narval was talking about... ?


----------



## P.T. (May 30, 2010)

I think it's possible to make too much of innovation.
Classical music innovated itself into oblivion and now the concert hall is a museum.

Stagnation has it's problems, but people still listen to the older classics.

If a piece has decent emotional as well as intellectual content then it is worth listening to.

I see that Jose linked to the 8th string quartet.
That is what I linked to in my previous post, just a different version.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

Jay, if you ask musicians from a professional orchestra which composer do you enjoy playing the most, I can guarantee you that Shosty will be the most often named. Now that says something about his masterful orchestration and style.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:


> Jay, if you ask musicians from a professional orchestra which composer do you enjoy playing the most, I can guarantee you that Shosty will be the most often named. Now that says something about his masterful orchestration and style.



I enjoy playing "Wooly Bully." 

That is no measure of a composer's importance. Not that it is necessarily important for a composer to be considered important


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:


> That is no measure of a composer's importance.



I think it's relevant, (but I will not choose the word "important", since I'm not sure what that means). We are not talking about a high school band, I mean professional musicians who plays all the great composers for a living.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > That is no measure of a composer's importance.
> ...



As usual, we are going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## nikolas (May 30, 2010)

importance=popularity in composition? It seems relevant but not the same...


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

To agree to disagree this early it's considered a technical KO. :D


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

nikolas @ Sun May 30 said:


> importance=popularity in composition? It seems relevant but not the same...



Well I'm certainly not going to get into the word "importance" cause that's an entire debate on its own. All I'm doing is praising the genius of Shosty.


----------



## nikolas (May 30, 2010)

How about we define the word "genius" then? Where's Troels when you need him? [/joke]

It's sad that we enter into some kind of political correct mode (at least I do) and it's difficult to just speak casually over a forum. Shosty is great, no doubt! In a pub I would argue over beer, if Stravinsky is 'greater', but it remains silly talk. If we talk technique, etc, then we might be better off...


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:


> To agree to disagree this early it's considered a technical KO. :D



Fine, I'll make your day... YOU WIN!!!!! :lol:


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

nikolas @ Sun May 30 said:


> How about we define the word "genius" then? Where's Troels when you need him? [/joke]
> 
> It's sad that we enter into some kind of political correct mode (at least I do) and it's difficult to just speak casually over a forum. Shosty is great, no doubt! In a pub I would argue over beer, if Stravinsky is 'greater', but it remains silly talk. If we talk technique, etc, then we might be better off...



Here's what it comes down to ....with a single composition, "Le Sacre Du Printemps" Stravinsky changed the musical view of what was possible for a generation of "serious" composers, as well as Hollywood composers. Bartok did the same with his string quartets and the "Bartok pizzicatos." 

I don't think anyone can reasonably maintain that Shosty did the same with a single work or even a body of work.

Mind you, I would NEVER participate in a public discussion like this about living composers.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

Fine, I'll make your day... YOU WIN!!!!!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:


> Fine, I'll make your day... YOU WIN!!!!!



LOL!

Guy, you are my kind of guy. That is not necessarily a good thing to say about you


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

:wink:


----------



## Narval (May 30, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:


> Why are people so afraid of judgement's on dead composers?
> 
> I will say it flat out, whether you enjoy him less or more, Stravinsky is a greater and more important composer than Shostakovich.
> 
> Enjoyment is one thing, evaluation of artistic merit is another. I like it does NOT equal it is good.


1. I am not afraid of negative judgments on dead or alive composers. I just find them baseless, trivial, meaningless, and completely unbeneficial.

2. Art is not sport. There can be no competition and no comparison between Shostakovitch and Stravinsky. To say that you think one to be "greater" than the other, that would only speak about your personal preference, while saying nothing meaningful about those composers and their music.

3. When a composer studies the scores of another composer, he would then either say "I like (don't like) this music" or "This music is (is not) good" - the two judgments will be equivalent. In that case, his enjoyment equals his evaluation of artistic merit, and his "I like it" equals "it is good."


----------



## Ashermusic (May 30, 2010)

Narval @ Sun May 30 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are people so afraid of judgement's on dead composers?
> ...



2. No history eventually makes its judgment. Montiverdi was more popular than Bach in his time but no one would seriously claim that Bach is not more important and greater.

3. I disagree. It is entirely possible to think something is good and still not like it and think something is not so good and like it anyway. 

If one cannot separate what one likes from a objective evaluation of its worth, it creates all kinds of problems in life as a whole, not just art.


----------



## handz (May 30, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:


> nikolas @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > How about we define the word "genius" then? Where's Troels when you need him? [/joke]
> ...



Im being sooo tired of how overpriced Le Sacre Du Printemps is. It was innovative and modernistic but what else is so great about Stravinskys works? Berg, Schoenberg - they were much more experimental and did you ever heard of Czech composer Alois Haba who practicaly invited quatertone compositions? There must be always some connection between Originality and listenablity - contemporary music lost connection to the mass public years ago because of composers tying to be too much modern / avantgarde / innovative. With Shostakovich I feel that those things are in balance. He have his own style, which is different but its still traditional.


----------



## castaliamusic (May 30, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> 2. No history eventually makes its judgment. Montiverdi was more popular than Bach in his time but no one would seriously claim that Bach is not more important and greater.



Are you serious? The two are equally important in the history of music, actually both at the top


----------



## José Herring (May 30, 2010)

Monteverdi kicks ASS!!!


I'm not sure but I don't think this was a thread intended to judge who's more significant as a composer, ect..... 

Rite is a great piece don't get me wrong, but if you played the Rite and you played Shostakovich on the same night I know from personal experience that Shosty gets the more audience response. So to me since art is a form of communication you would need to weigh audience reaction and not just an academic judgment on who was more ground breaking. To that end Firebird and Petrouska are brilliant pieces that also get tremendous audience response as well.

So for me if we're going to judge I think that one also needs to factor in not just the technical aspects of a piece or a composer but also the emotional response of the listener.


----------



## castaliamusic (May 30, 2010)

And Monteverdi was more popular than Bach because the latter wasn't born yet


----------



## José Herring (May 30, 2010)

In truth I've always been partial to Orlando de Lassus


----------



## castaliamusic (May 30, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> 2. No history eventually makes its judgment. Montiverdi was more popular than Bach in his time but no one would seriously claim that Bach is not more important and greater.



Although I can see your point, you contradict yourself in this sentence: Monteverdi was a great innovator. You can't say the same for Bach


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

True, Bach was not much of an innovator, on the contrary, very conservative.


----------



## José Herring (May 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:


> True, Bach was not much of an innovator, on the contrary, very conservative.



Yeah. He only invented the well tempered klavier, revolutionized musical harmony and paved the way for all music from classical to pop to share a common language. So I see your point. Not very inventive. :roll:


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

I think you should stop getting your history from cereal boxes. Have you ever studied the history of music?

If you are convinced of what you say, then good for you, but I'm not going to engage myself in this conversation.


----------



## P.T. (May 30, 2010)

I'm kind of sorry I revived this thread.

I just thought that I would post links to a very good string quartet performance that this thread led me to by peaking my curiosity.


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun May 30 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > True, Bach was not much of an innovator, on the contrary, very conservative.
> ...



You should read up on some history josejherring. Bach brought to a climax centuries of music and to an unparalleled contrapuntal beauty. He was extremely traditionalist, in fact this is why he wrote, "The Art of the Fugue", because he knew it was an art fading away. Bach's harmony has nothing inventive as you seem to think so, again he just crafted his art to a higher degree than anyone. But times were changing and Bach style was not in fashion anymore, probably why he was forgotten for a while. 

I suggest next time before rolling your eyes :roll: get your facts straight.


----------



## Narval (May 30, 2010)

Hey you two, open a Bach love thread and fight over there, would you?  



P.T. @ Sun May 30 said:


> I'm kind of sorry I revived this thread.
> 
> I just thought that I would post links to a very good string quartet performance that this thread led me to by peaking my curiosity.


Yes, the 8th string quartet, some great music! Thanks for posting! 

Truth be spoken, Shostakovitch kicks at least as much ass as Stravinsky! o/~ 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OTq7uhz ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ee-GPD ... re=related


----------



## José Herring (May 30, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:


> josejherring @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Bacos @ Sun May 30 said:
> ...



I think we're looking at the same thing with different glasses Guy. He was able to bring to a climax these musical traditions because of his technical innovations. Get me now?

As far as his harmony not being that innovative I suggest you restudy the fugues in the WTC and then tell me again who before, during or even shortly after was writing harmonies that complex. There's even a 12 tone row in one of the very last Fugues.

Before you get all pissed off at me I'd suggest you stop listening to your professors and pick up a few of my cereal boxes! >8o


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 30, 2010)

You're hilarious josejherring!


----------



## synthetic (May 30, 2010)

I don't care how inventive Shostakovich is, he kicks all kinds of ass! Molto aggressivo.


----------



## Narval (May 30, 2010)

Also, molto grazioso 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968R082v-Ts&feature


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

handz @ Sun May 30 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > nikolas @ Sun May 30 said:
> ...



If you do not know why Stravinsky is great, then I am afraid there is no way I can explain it to you. He is great because he wrote, vibrant exciting and bold music. I vividly remember Sherman Walt playing the bassoon solo at the beginning of "Le Sacre" with the BSO and feeling the hair stand up on the back of my neck. It is still to me one of the most thrilling passages in the entire literature.

Personally, I would rather listen to "L'Histoire Du Soldat" than practically any Romantic period piece. And I love Schoenberg, Berg and Webern, who my teacher used to refer to as "the father, the son, and the holy ghost" more than all the Shosyt, Mahler, Bruckner and Wagner.

I find all of them, as well as Ives, Milhaud, Berio, Boulez and Varese extremely listenable but perhaps I am not as married to tonality as many.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

castaliamusic @ Sun May 30 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. No history eventually makes its judgment. Montiverdi was more popular than Bach in his time but no one would seriously claim that Bach is not more important and greater.
> ...



All Western music stands squarely on Bach's sturdy shoulders. Virtually every element of traditional harmony and counterpoint is represented in the two Well Tempered Clavier books alone.

Bach has hundreds of pieces that are common repetory for orchestras, soloists, and choirs while Montiverdi's work, with the exception of "Orfeu", is relatively rarely performed except by groups specializing in Rennaissance/early Baroque.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun May 30 said:


> Monteverdi kicks ASS!!!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure but I don't think this was a thread intended to judge who's more significant as a composer, ect.....
> ...



Well then I guess a "Star Wars suite" is greater than all the Mozart, Beethoven, etc since no doubt it will get the biggest response. And of course, McDonald's is the ultimate in fine cuisine because more people like it than a fine steak.

In pop culture, communication with a large number of people is a very important goal, but we cannot hold concert music to that standard or we will condemn it to mediocrity and playing it safe.


----------



## castaliamusic (May 31, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> castaliamusic @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:
> ...



It's obvious you don't know much about Monteverdi...


----------



## nikolas (May 31, 2010)

Guys...

Really this is getting meaningless. I mean, if you have ever said to yourself (or others) that a composer is better than another, without any other implication, or thought or anything, or if you ever admitted that you think Beethoven is the best composer that has ever existed, then you know the manner that some of us are talking here...

There's no real ditching and of course others will dissagree. This is not an academic talk of any sort. It is within ones right to claim that "x is better than y"... It's an opinion, even if it is rather numb to do so...


----------



## handz (May 31, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> handz @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:
> ...


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

_Oh c´mon, dont try to play that "you not worthy" game on me...
I know Stravinskys work very well and I know WHY is he so loved by some. But I dont eat it_. 

I didn't say that and I didn't meant that. I meant that greatness is hard to verbalize. 

_You are as I see under influence of your teacher who was in love with modernists.
_

No, my teacher introduced me to the "modernists", expanded my ears and my mind, and then I fell in love with some of the modernists.

_I and many other people love romantic / postromantic period. Some love classical.
_

True. I love Classical period also. 

_I like something from every period. But still, romanticism is main source for movie music that I like becaise of nice melodies and moods. I listnening to Penderecki, Xenakis etc... but its more of interesting than enjoyable sometimes.
_

As do I. Hell, I started as a songwriter and melody is where I hang my hat, but for personal listening of concert hall composers, which is by definition a different gig than film scoring, I tend to get weary of all the gushy, heart on its sleeve stuff more quickly than other periods.

I find the people I listed enjoyable as well as interesting. You are entitled not to. I have no problem with people preferring Shosty to other composers that history has judged as greater or more important. My main point is that just because someone loves something, it does not make it great.[/quote]


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

castaliamusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> .



It's obvious you don't know much about Monteverdi...[/quote]

Please name me at even a dozen Monteverdi pieces that are part of the standard repertoire for orchestras, soloists, and choirs. Monteverdi was a brilliant composer but he was not Bach.

This website pretty much reflects what I believe is commonly history's relative assessment.
http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/composer/composers.html (http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/compos ... osers.html)


----------



## dcoscina (May 31, 2010)

I know everyone says Stravinksy is great but I much prefer Prokofiev's music. Is there less technique present? No. Is there less innovation? Well, I would say that is contestable. Prokofiev's Classical Symphony is every bit as viable an example of Neo-Classicism as Stravinsky's output in that idiom. 

As for Shosty, well guys, please remember that unlike his Russian compatriots Igor and Sergei, who lived abroad and not under the watchful wrath of Stalin, was compromised by not wanting to get killed by a firing squad. This definitely affected his music. I like Shostakovich's music a lot. Not quite as much as Prokofiev's but I still can make a connection to it. I still cannot with Stravinsky. I like the techniques he uses but often prefer his ideas as filtered through someone like Jerry Goldsmith. 

Heck, I can even make a visceral connection with Bartok. I don't think this is a shortcoming of Stravinsky the composer- it's just my own preferences and biases. I do not believe a composer's main goal is to get as many people to like his or her music. They are communcating ideas and feelings- whether they resonate with the listener is more on the listener's shoulders, not the creator's. I will not say that there's an abscence of technique on the part of Stravinsky just because I cannot connect with it, nor is there any problem with my listening skills just because I fail to be blown away by it. It's just a disconnect.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

dcoscina @ Mon May 31 said:


> I know everyone says Stravinksy is great but I much prefer Prokofiev's music. Is there less technique present? No. Is there less innovation? Well, I would say that is contestable. Prokofiev's Classical Symphony is every bit as viable an example of Neo-Classicism as Stravinsky's output in that idiom.
> 
> As for Shosty, well guys, please remember that unlike his Russian compatriots Igor and Sergei, who lived abroad and not under the watchful wrath of Stalin, was compromised by not wanting to get killed by a firing squad. This definitely affected his music. I like Shostakovich's music a lot. Not quite as much as Prokofiev's but I still can make a connection to it. I still cannot with Stravinsky. I like the techniques he uses but often prefer his ideas as filtered through someone like Jerry Goldsmith.
> 
> Heck, I can even make a visceral connection with Bartok. I don't think this is a shortcoming of Stravinsky the composer- it's just my own preferences and biases. I do not believe a composer's main goal is to get as many people to like his or her music. They are communcating ideas and feelings- whether they resonate with the listener is more on the listener's shoulders, not the creator's. I will not say that there's an abscence of technique on the part of Stravinsky just because I cannot connect with it, nor is there any problem with my listening skills just because I fail to be blown away by it. It's just a disconnect.



Very well stated. 

BTW, I too love Prokofiev. I played some of the "Vision Fugitives" at the conservatory and found \them to be remarkable.


----------



## José Herring (May 31, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:


> josejherring @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Monteverdi kicks ASS!!!
> ...



Ah Jay you disappoint me comparing apples to oranges.

No I'm not comparing Stravinsky to the Beetles and saying that the Beetles are better because they were more popular. One has to compare something within it's intended medium. 

Yes in the fast food medium McDonald's is better than Burger King. But that's a fair comparison because they are after the same market. But I don't compare McDonald's to Mortons because Mortons is after a different more affluent clientele of which unfortunately is a considerably smaller market.

As far as innovation is concerned, Petroushka and The Firebird use the same techniques of poly tonality and poly rhythmic and compound meters that the Rite does. And, while I think the Rite is a brilliant piece, I much prefer the other two pieces of Stravinsky for the scientific reasoning that, I can listen to the other two without wincing. :mrgreen:

So within the intended medium of the concert world Shosty gets played way more than Stravinsky does and yes I think that matters. I won't even bother to mention who I think is more of an innovator, but I will say that no I don't think that Shosty was some minor influential composer compared to Stravinsky because in the concert òÓç   Õ±+Óç   Õ±,Óç   Õ±-Óç   Õ±.Óç   Õ±/Óç   Õ±0Óç   Õ±1Óç   Õ±2Óç   Õ±3Óè   Õ±4Óè   Õ±5Óè   Õ±6Óè   Õ±7Óé   Õ±8Óé   Õ±9Óé   Õ±:Óé   Õ±;Óé   Õ±<Óé   Õ±=Óé   Õ±>Óé   Õ±?Óê   Õ±@Óê   Õ±AÓê   Õ±BÓê   Õ±CÓê   Õ±DÓê   Õ±EÓê   Õ±FÓê   Õ±GÓê   Õ±HÓê   Õ±IÓê   Õ±JÓê   Õ±KÓê   Õ±LÓê   Õ±MÓê   Õ±NÓê   Õ±OÓê   Õ±PÓê   Õ±QÓê   Õ±RÓê   Õ±SÓê   Õ±TÓê   Õ±UÓê   Õ±VÓê   Õ±WÓê   Õ±XÓê   Õ±YÓë   Õ±ZÓë   Õ±[Óë


----------



## Narval (May 31, 2010)

It seems that the discussion in this thread tends to focus on the following themes (in order of importance): Me, my preferences, my beliefs, composers, music.

When music comes last even to music makers, that's when it all becomes really sad. Thank goodness for the music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wGs6b7A ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9w_ZcJ2t_k


----------



## Guy Bacos (May 31, 2010)

josejherring @ Mon May 31 said:


> No I'm not comparing Stravinsky to the Beetles and saying that the Beetles are better because they were more popular.



It's Beatles not Beetles.


----------



## José Herring (May 31, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 31 said:


> josejherring @ Mon May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > No I'm not comparing Stravinsky to the Beetles and saying that the Beetles are better because they were more popular.
> ...



It's not my fault that they don't know how to spell beetles.


----------



## handz (May 31, 2010)

Beat less


----------



## re-peat (May 31, 2010)

dcoscina @ Mon May 31 said:


> I think it's difficult if not impossible to argue who had better technique when it comes to Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. There can be some discussion and debate about who was more influential. (...)


No, there can't be. Stravinsky's influence on music is simply impossible to overestimate and reaches FAR wider and deeper than even the many profound changes which "The Sacre" alone brought about.
In short: every single person who's making music in the 20th century (and beyond) is indebted to Stravinsky, whether they know it (or like it) or not, and no matter the musical style or genre they're active in. Just like anyone who's into visual arts — and that includes architecture, film, scenography, sculpture and fashion as well — owes to some extent to Picasso. Those are the two, more than anyone else in this or the previous century, who have laid the foundation on which almost our entire contemporary understanding, apprecation and validation of artistic expression is built. Shostakovitch, Bartok or Prokofiev or whoever anyone cares to mention, don't even enter into it, no matter how fine and unique a composer they all have been.

There's one, or sometimes two, of those giants in every century: people who's artistic shadow is so huge and far-reaching that it becomes impossible for contemporaries or later generations to escape it. Beethoven was such a man. And Shakespeare. And, in the 20th century: Picasso and Stravinsky.

Prokofiev and, even more so, hordes of lesser composers such as Copland, Poulenc or Tippett, only found their own voice after Stravinsky had shown them all that is possible in music.
The recognition of rhythm as a major element in music — of equal importance as melody, structure, harmony and timbre — is something we owe to Stravinsky. The whole post-modern approach to music (or art in general), which is an essential part of today's musical culture and how we look at all art (and the relevance of its history in today's context), is simply unthinkable without Stravinsky. The reshuffling of the elements which make up the hierarchy in musical composition is entirely Stravinsky's. Minimalism, as a musical concept, is again entirely Stravinskian. And so is the acceptance of loop-based music as something which has musical value and meaning. More than a few of the elements which make Hans Zimmer's music so popular these days are sourced from Stravinsky. And any style of non-ethnic music that hopes to spiritualize a ritual, originates conceptually with Stravinsky as well. I'm even inclined to think that there would be no rock 'n roll without Stravinsky. Seriously: the idea that music can also celebrate and evoke archetypical primitivism — which is one of the core forces behind rock music — and doesn't have to be restricted to represent the more lofty side of the human identity, is also a Stravinskian concept (in the context of 'music as a conscious artistic expression', I mean).

Anyway, the most important line in the above is this: Stravinsky, more than any other composer before or after him, has shown us _all that is possible in music_. His endless creative curiosity (the characteristic of him which Esa-Peka Salonen rightly singles out as perhaps Stravinsky's most influential asset) has disclosed a vast wealth of musical sources and resources, techniques and methods which we now all take for granted, but which simply wouldn't have evolved the way they have, if it weren't for Stravinsky. Like I sòÔ   Õ»ÃÔ   Õ»zÔ   Õ»{Ô   Õ»ÆÔ   Õ»ÇÔ   Õ»ÈÔ   Õ»ÉÔ   Õ»ÊÔ   Õ»ËÔ   Õ»ÌÔ   Õ»ÍÔ   Õ»ÎÔ   Õ»ÏÔ   Õ»ÐÔ   Õ»ÑÔ   Õ»ÒÔ   Õ»ÓÔ   Õ»ÔÔ   Õ»ÕÔ   Õ»ÖÔ   Õ»×Ô   Õ»ØÔ   Õ»ÙÔ   Õ»ÚÔ   Õ»ÛÔ   Õ»ÜÔ   Õ»ÝÔ   Õ»ÞÔ   Õ»ßÔ   Õ»àÔ   Õ»áÔ   Õ»âÔ   Õ»ãÔ   Õ»äÔ   Õ»åÔ   Õ»æÔ   Õ»çÔ   Õ»èÔ   Õ»éÔ   Õ»êÔ   Õ»ëÔ   Õ»ìÔ   Õ»íÔ


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

josejherring @ Mon May 31 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="josejherring @ Sun
> ...



First of all, it is not just about innovation for me. I find "Le Sacre" thrilling to listen to it. It engages me intellectually AND emotionally far more than most romantic period music, including Shosty. That's just me maybe.

Copland obviously is a great composer and extremely influential for film music but borrowed heavily from others, especially the more adventurous Charles Ives.

I love Copland and in my latest project I have ripped him off big time but as a concert hall composer I feel a little about him the way I feel about Andrew Wyeth in art: great artists but plowing ground that largely had been plowed.

BTW, according to Wikipedia, Copland said that Stravinsky was his "hero" and favorite 20th century composer. Stravinsky was in many ways his premiere model. Stravinsky's rhythm and vitality is apparent in many of his works. Copland was especially admiring of Stravinsky's "jagged and uncouth rhythmic effects," "bold use of dissonance," and "hard, dry, crackling sonority." Copland was similarly but not quite as strongly impressed by Sergei Prokofiev's "fresh, clean-cut, articulate style."

No mention of what he thought about Shosty 

And Copland on Bach: In discovering Johann Sebastian Bach, Copland pointed out: "[Bach has an] inexhaustible wealth of musical riches, which no music lover can afford to ignore…what strikes me most markedly about Bach's work is the marvelous rightness of it. It is the rightness not merely of a single individual, but a whole musical epoch." Copland stated that an ideal music might combine Mozart's "spontaneity and refinement", with Palestrina's "purity", and Bach's "profundity".

No mention of what he thought about Montiverdi


----------



## Ashermusic (May 31, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 31 said:


> dcoscina @ Mon May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's difficult if not impossible to argue who had better technique when it comes to Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. There can be some discussion and debate about who was more influential. (...)
> ...




Oh good lord, I actually find myself agreeing with Piet. I will need to rethink my position.

Just kidding, Piet


----------



## Narval (May 31, 2010)

Petroushka, Firebird, and Sacré, are influential musical works in terms of techniques, aesthetic, and creative vision. Besides, they are great pieces of music in themselves.

Now, back to Shostakovitch kicking some major ass  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twy4gaJeLqs


----------



## José Herring (May 31, 2010)

No mention of Buxtehude either?

I find your analysis well thought out and heartfelt Jay. How could I disagree?

Repeat, of your many post I find this last one pretty illuminating. Except for Copland being a lesser composer. Maybe technically, but not aesthetically.


----------



## handz (May 31, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 31 said:


> dcoscina @ Mon May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's difficult if not impossible to argue who had better technique when it comes to Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. There can be some discussion and debate about who was more influential. (...)
> ...



Sorry but this is too big glorification. 

Music as we hear it now?? Which music? "Contemporary" music that almost no one cares about because it is so "innovative" that it is almost unlistenable? 

Stravinsky was lets say pioneer of modern methods in composing but it was direction that get music more far than close to people nowdays.

Again I must say - for the movie music the romantic / postromantic / impresionism period is the main source.

If you into jazz and avantgarde composing yes - than stravinsky is way to go, but I dont take his influence to be only good. 

I found Schoenbergs methods far more innovative and modern that stravisnkys (and I dont like neoclassicism) but Stravinsky himself was a bit enemy of Schoenbergs theories so we propably will not agree on this. 

His music is (as also critics say) is emotionaly cold, more focused on composition etc and this is what I simply dont like (also in contemporary music).


----------



## castaliamusic (May 31, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> Please name me at even a dozen Monteverdi pieces that are part of the standard repertoire for orchestras, soloists, and choirs. Monteverdi was a brilliant composer but he was not Bach.
> 
> This website pretty much reflects what I believe is commonly history's relative assessment.
> http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/composer/composers.html (http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/compos ... osers.html)



from your link: "..all these techniques work together to make Monteverdi one of the true geniuses of Western music"

:mrgreen: 


History of music is exactly like every other part of history: the more you know the better it is. Every composer contributed in some way. Now, is it Dmitri Shostakovich part of that history? Yes. And is it that important to have a winner (the "greatest")? No. Every composer contributed in it's own way.
For example IMHO Webern contributed a lot to other composers, while Shostakovich (and others...) helped performers and audience to accept and love the music of the 20th century. Because he was less avantgarde and learned to communicate to the common people, even with dissonances.



P.S.: By the way, I hope you know why symphony orchestras don't perform Monteverdi... :lol:
And... every choir that i know have Monteverdi works in their repertoire


----------



## Narval (May 31, 2010)

castaliamusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> is it that important to have a winner (the "greatest")? No.


Yes!! :evil: 




Nah, just kidding. The winner-looser mindframe doesn't apply to composers. 

But some people seem to need this sort of reassuring, comforting thoughts, that their favorite is "the winner" - like in a horse race, or American Idol. "And the winner is ... : Stravinskyyyyy!!!!"o=< Just let them be. Meantime, let's listen to this man's wizardries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt8F_CRY ... re=related


(btw, he looks a bit like Harry Potter, doesn't he? :mrgreen: )


----------



## castaliamusic (May 31, 2010)

Narval @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> But some people seem to need this sort of reassuring, comforting thoughts, that their favorite is "the winner" - like in a horse race, or American Idol. "And the winner is ... : Stravinskyyyyy!!!!"o=<



Exactly. And there's even some people that think music magically appeared during the baroque era...


----------



## re-peat (May 31, 2010)

handz @ Mon May 31 said:


> (...) Music as we hear it now?? Which music? "Contemporary" music that almost no one cares about because it is so "innovative" that it is almost unlistenable?
> Stravinsky was lets say pioneer of modern methods in composing but it was direction that get music more far than close to people nowdays.
> 
> Again I must say - for the movie music the romantic / postromantic / impresionism period is the main source.
> ...


Handz,

Which music, you ask? Any music, is my answer. The complete freedom with which we now can embrace, explore, use, abuse, revere or loath every popular or unpopular musical expression on earth, is something which we have to thank Stravinsky for. (Not him alone of course, but him in no small measure nonetheless.) The, in some circles very happily welcomed, fact that low-brow music can become high-brow music (and vice versa) is, again, largely thanks to Stravinsky.

'Modern classical' music’s increasing alienation from ‘the public’, on the other hand, is only partially attributable to him and, in my view, only indirectly so. It’s going to take us way too far outside the scope of this thread — and far beyond my currently available energies as well, I'm affraid — to explain that adequately, but suffice to say that, even during his most ‘abstract' period — when he explored the possibilities and uses which dodecaphony might have for his music —, Stravinsky always remained, in one way or another, a tonal composer. With characteristic instinct, he immediately knew (and never ignored) the fact that atonality can only have its full meaning by virtue of tonality. Atonality is a far more powerful tool when used in tonal surroundings. Exactly the same thing that occurred with Picasso, who never really abandonned a figurative language either, and on the rare occasions that he did, only did so as a transitory, searching excercise.
Stravinsky was never dogmatic about his music either, he simply allowed it go wherever he felt it needed going, feeding on all that came before him and/or was happening around him, but at the same time, with complete disregard (and often contempt) for fashionable credo’s, modernistic axioms (the Boulez school of thinking) or any other such suffocating (and today completely outdated and irrelevant) nonsense.

By the way, there is, I think, a contradiction in your dismissal of neo-classical music on the one hand, and your praise of romantic/post-romantic/impressionistic music and filmmusic on the other. The filmmusic which you like so much is, by and large, very neo-classical in concept: it applies musical idioms of the past, filters them through today’s lens, and re-shapes them into a contemporary significant language (if we’re lucky, that is, to be left in the hands of an inspired composer). 
Most filmmusic may sound completely different from Stravinsky’s neo-classical works, true, but that is not the point. The point is that the liberation of our musical thinking and creativity — which allowed for, and validated, this ‘looking in the musical mirror’, and distilling musical meaning out of that experience — has, not exclusively perhaps, but to a significant degree, entered our musical language thanks to Stravinsky’s achievements. I’m not saying that Stravinsky effectively shaped Hollywood's musical idiom — far from it: Wagner and Richard Strauss a.o. did that some time before him — I’m saying that filmmusic, especially from the forties and fifties onwards, was very much enriched as a direct result of Stravinsky’s openness to soaking up and using music’s history in a creative and re-vitalizing manner. (On top of which, he also contributed an enourmously large musical vocabulary to filmmusic’s language, especially in the area which deals with underlining the more extreme, tense, dark, aggressive and/or violent of man’s emotions: Hermann, Fielding, North, Goldsmith and Williams, for instance: their musical toolbox would be a lot less full if Stravinsky hadn't been around. And from that generation of filmcomposers to the current is but a microscopic step of course.) 

As for his music being ‘emotionnaly cold’: I really don’t think so, despite what the esteemed critics like to say (and I'm aware that they have been saying it ever since the 1920's). If you like to approach music first and foremost as a provider/trigger of extra-musical ‘emotions’ than, yes, I’m prepared to accept that Stravinsky might not seem to be the most immediate rewarding choice of composer. But it’s a very narrow-minded (and somewhat sad and saddening) outlook on music, I believe (in that it reduces/devaluates music to be a mere ‘spoon of emotions’), and on Stravinsky in particular. And that outlook takes on downright ridiculous proportions if one starts accusing a musician for being too focused on his music, rather than being concerned with the emotions of his audience. I mean, what selfish arrogance to demand such a thing from a composer, any composer.
The thing is: the ‘emotion’ in Stravinsky’s music is not the type of emotion most people go looking for when listening to music. I know. It’s obviously not the same sort of emotion many people hope to derive from listening to music like, say, Elgar’s ‘Nimrod’ or Barber’s ‘Adagio’ or whatever. (I’m not dissing either of those superb works, mind you, I’m merely trying to make a point.) The emotional power in Stravinsky's music lies, for me anyway, partly in being allowed to be a witness to and a recipient of his complete love for music, his supreme talent for it, his insatiable thirst to discover, assimilate and create, his all-devouring and never-tiring commitment to conquer ever-expanding musical territory and to always find and speak his own musical voice, as precisely tuned as he could possibly tune it, in whichever style, format or genre that he tackled. On top of which, there’s the amazing level of invention, the astounding amount of musical ideas, the bewilderingly perfect command of his craft, and the musical power which results from all of that (and which has been flowering almost unfailingly during a period which encompasses nearly seven decades, from the early 1900’s to 1971).

It may seem like I'm getting a tad carried away here, and in a way, I am. I find much of Stravinsky’s music among the most profound, shatteringly beautiful music ever created, I really do. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing ‘cold’ about it whatsoever. Calling his music, and his depth of love for music, ‘cold’ can, in my very cautiously expressed opinion, only come from those who know little about love and even less about music.

But I don't want to end on that slightly prickly sentence. Above all, I sincerely hope that someday, somehow, you'll find a way into Stravinsky's music. Really, it is one of the most musically rewarding, mind-blowingly rich and life-enhancing bodies of work ever left behind by a musician, for us to enjoy and be inspired by.

_


----------



## Narval (May 31, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 31 said:


> I find much of Stravinsky’s music among the most profound, shatteringly beautiful music ever created


And some other people may have similar feelings about some other composers. Which is precisely why negative judgments on composers are not only inconsiderate and rude but straight out offensive.

Is it that difficult to affirm your admiration for a composer, like re-peat does, without trying to put down other composers?


----------



## Narval (May 31, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:


> it is all pretty tame stuff.


If it is to you, then maybe you should add: "in my inconsiderate opinion."


----------



## Evan Gamble (May 31, 2010)

It is a pretty ridiculous statement to say that Stravinsky is better than Shostakovitch... especially from you Jay, considering your whole "don't judge unless you can do better" mentality.

Shosty is the shit that's a fact. Give him the respect he deserves, if *you* like another composer better that is fine, it is all subjective...but don't diss shosty by saying he is any of a lesser composer, or by calling him "fine" which I would consider an insult.

Symphony No. 11 and his 13th String Quartet are enough to testify to this.


----------



## Evan Gamble (May 31, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon May 31 said:


> ...'Modern classical' music’s increasing alienation from ‘the public’...
> 
> _



I hope that everyone who agrees that todays concert music alienates its audience will take another look at what actual modern concert music is. The new school (meaning composer's under 35) is all about accessibility, at least in America for the most part.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 1, 2010)

I really enjoy re-peat's posts-very informative and illuminating. But I still don't care for Stravinsky's music as much as I try. I find no emotional depth there whereas something like The Prodigal Son by Prokofiev has a tremendous amount of visceral wallop for me. Or Shosty's opening mvmt of his 12th symphony. 

I still think it's debatable the level of the effect of Le Sacre on music of the 20th century. But I like re-peat's thoughtful posts. At least it gives ne something to think about.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 1, 2010)

Evan Gamble @ Mon May 31 said:


> It is a pretty ridiculous statement to say that Stravinsky is better than Shostakovitch... especially from you Jay, considering your whole "don't judge unless you can do better" mentality.
> 
> Shosty is the [email protected]#t that's a fact. Give him the respect he deserves, if *you* like another composer better that is fine, it is all subjective...but don't diss shosty by saying he is any of a lesser composer, or by calling him "fine" which I would consider an insult.
> 
> Symphony No. 11 and his 13th String Quartet are enough to testify to this.



That "mentality" is about my approach to discussing living film composers and songwriters, folks who do what I do. It does not pertain to discussing dead concert hall composers who I am not competing with and who are beyond any harm by this type of discussion. It goes without saying that NO ONE here is in the same league or ever will be with any of the guys we are discussing here. We are arguing about DEGREES of greatness, not whether or not they are great.

Personally, I am thrilled if someone writes that Jay Asher is a fine film/tv composer but you find that an insulting term? It means "worthy of or eliciting admiration."

OK how about this: Shostakovich is undeniably a great composer but perhaps not as great or important as some of his contemporaries. This may be partly due to the fact that he was not always free to write what he wanted to write.

And if that doesn't work for you or some others here, I am sorry, but that is my opinion.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 1, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 31 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > My original post read: "Shostakovich was indeed a fine composer but perhaps because he was over the length of his career limited by government fiat as to what he could and could not write, his music seldom broke new ground, just further mined ground explored by even more talented guys.
> ...



Well, it is a fact that he was officially denounced twice by his government in 1936 and 1948 and was periodically banned for releasing pieces that were too dissonant.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jun 1, 2010)

Ah thanks, that's what I wanted to know.


----------



## alphonse (Jun 1, 2010)

Berlioz >8o king of kick a$$ !!!


----------



## Narval (Jun 1, 2010)

dcoscina @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> I still don't care for Stravinsky's music as much as I try. I find no emotional depth there


And this problem is on whose shoulders, again?



dcoscina @ Mon May 31 said:


> I don't think this is a shortcoming of Stravinsky the composer- it's just my own preferences and biases. I do not believe a composer's main goal is to get as many people to like his or her music. They are communcating ideas and feelings- whether they resonate with the listener is more on the listener's shoulders, not the creator's.


----------



## Narval (Jun 1, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> We are arguing about DEGREES of greatness


We, who? "Degrees of greatness" are assigned subjectively, so there can be no meaningful discussion or argument upon such "degrees." Anyways, not any more meaningful than a "my taste is better than your taste" argument.

Just curious, what are your "degrees" good for? They help you with what? Maybe they can help the rest of us, poor ignorants, too - no? Come on, be generous! How exactly do you measure "DEGREES of greatness?" But wait a minute, are your degrees objective or subjective? If they are subjective, then how come there is no trace of personal nuance to your sweeping statements? Your "degrees of greatness" must be objective then. So, are you in the possession of the Universal Measurement Device for Musical Greatness? If so, congratulations! Maybe you should market it, for your own and everyone else's benefit, no? Then everyone will accept your standards, established by the God of music and then handed down to you written in stone! Come down, Moses! (and I mean down off your high horses of course) :lol:


----------



## handz (Jun 1, 2010)

Stravinsky is COLD but someone who loves some modern jazz etc is coldness happyness. Not for me.


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 1, 2010)

Well, I suppose it depends upon which period you're talking about too, as Stravinsky was a Chameleon over the years.

Clearly nobody can listen to his early works and call them cold - Firebird, Fireworks, 1st Sym, etc. - very colorful pieces which he's know for as much, or more so, than his later works.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 1, 2010)

Well can't argue opinions, but let the record stand that I believe Shosty was the closest thing to Beethoven in the 20th century.

I mean justòÔÙ   ÕøçÔÚ   ÕøèÔÚ   ÕøéÔÚ   ÕøêÔÚ   ÕøëÔÚ   ÕøìÔÚ   ÕøíÔÚ   ÕøîÔÚ   ÕøïÔÚ   ÕøðÔÚ   ÕøñÔÚ   ÕøòÔÚ   ÕøóÔÚ   ÕøôÔÚ   ÕøõÔÚ   ÕøöÔÚ   Õø÷ÔÚ   ÕøøÔÚ   ÕøùÔÚ   ÕøúÔÚ   ÕøûÔÚ   ÕøüÔÚ   ÕøýÔÚ   ÕøþÔÚ   ÕøÿÔÚ   Õù ÔÚ   ÕùÔÚ   ÕùÔÚ   ÕùÔÛ   ÕùÔÛ   ÕùÔÛ   ÕùÔÛ   ÕùÔÛ   ÕùÔÛ   Õù	ÔÛ   Õù
ÔÛ   ÕùÔÛ


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 1, 2010)

Narval @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, aren't you over-reacting just a little here?
> ...




I have spent my entire life in the music business and I am passionate about music but I have never lost sight of the fact that great musicians are/were not necessarily great people so: I have 1 mother, 1 wife, 1 daughter and a bunch of musicians whose work I admire.

You, my friend, need to gain a sense of perspective.


----------



## Narval (Jun 1, 2010)

No one is necessarily "great" or "less great" or whatever you may think of them. I have only asked for expressing your opinions in a considerate manner, in the hope that that's not too difficult for you.

Do you realize what are you doing in this thread? Take a step back and look at your posts in context. I'm not very sure who lacks a sense of perspective here.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 1, 2010)

synergy543 @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> Well, I suppose it depends upon which period you're talking about too, as Stravinsky was a Chameleon over the years.


No, he wasn't. Please forgive me for being so argumentative about this particular subject matter, but it's important, I feel. Stravinsky was in fact the most constantly recognizeable of all 20th century composers, no matter which period of his you care to focus on. That's the remarkable thing, you see: whatever style or method he explored or assimilated, he always remained unmistakenly Stravinsky. Nothing chameleon-like about him at all. 12-tone Stravinsky isn't fundamentally different from neo-classical Stravinsky or Russian Stravinsky ... it's always him. His musical identity was FAR too strong and powerful to ever dissolve or dissappear into something as superficial as a musical style or technique. Listen to 'Pulcinella', 'Renard', 'Agon', 'Requiem Canticles', 'Pastorale', 'Symphony in Three Movements', 'Petrushka', 'Dumbarton Oaks', 'Concertino For 12 Instruments', 'Movements' (a random selection, covering his entire career) and you'll always hear one composer, and one which is impossible to mistake for anyone else.

I could, on the other hand, easily make a collage of works by Berio, Ligeti, Xenakis, Birthwhistle, Boulez and numerous others 20th century composers and no one would have a clue as to which work belongs to which composer. Not so with Stravinsky: you can always pick him out of a line-up, no matter which hat he has decided on wearing.

_


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 1, 2010)

Yeah Stravinsky had signature spacings of chords that no matter what style he was writing is immediately recognizable as Stravinsky.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 1, 2010)

Narval @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> No one is necessarily "great" or "less great" or whatever you may think of them. I have only asked for expressing your opinions in a considerate manner, in the hope that that's not too difficult for you.
> 
> Do you realize what are you doing in this thread? Take a step back and look at your posts in context. I'm not very sure who lacks a sense of perspective here.



Inconsiderate to who? The composers? They are dead so they don't care! They are famous and revered and nothing written here can change that! 

Inconsiderate to YOU, because you don't share my opinions and dislike the idea that a famous composer can be fairly deemed less or more great? Obviously there are a few others who share my iew that we can, like re-peat, who for once, I agree with 

I am sorry, you will just have to live with that.


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 1, 2010)

@repeat & Evan - I concede your points regarding consistent charactistics, however, that wasn't the subject (or rather you've twisted my subject or interpreted it as something else). My comment was in response to Dcosina saying Stravinsky's music was "cold" and I was pointing out that Stravinsky had several very different styles (thus referring to his change in styles as being a Chameleon - same chameleon, just different colors) throughout his composing career - many people find affinity with one or the other.

In otherwords, the Lullaby in Firebird is anything but "cold".


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 1, 2010)

synergy543 @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> In otherwords, the Lullaby in Firebird is anything but "cold".



Agreed


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 1, 2010)

Evan Gamble @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> synergy543 @ Tue Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > In otherwords, the Lullaby in Firebird is anything but "cold".
> ...



Nor do I find "Le Sacre" cold. It is a very passionate piece, IMHO.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 1, 2010)

I don't think there's a single 'cold' bar to be found in the whole of Stravinsky's oeuvre but obviously, some of you do. Fair enough, no problem. But please, just name me a work which you consider 'cold', I really would like to know. Just to get an idea.

I still can't get over the fact, by the way, that quite a few of you — or so it seems — consider a 'complete commitment to music itself, in its purest and most abstract form' to be a cold attitude resulting in cold music. To me, it's the exact opposite: musical creativity of that kind, on that level, persued with such dedication, touches me MUCH deeper than any music which carries its supposed emotion on its sleeve.

_


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 1, 2010)

re-peat @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> I still can't get over the fact, by the way, that quite a few of you — or so it seems — consider a 'complete commitment to music itself, in its purest and most abstract form' to be a cold attitude resulting in cold music. To me, it's the exact opposite: musical creativity of that kind, on that level, persued with such dedication, touches me MUCH deeper than any music which carries its supposed emotion on its sleeve.
> 
> _



Agreed as well. As painter's often say, "Paint is paint, canvas is canvas."

I feel the same with music, let pitches be pitches, rhythms be rhythms, and timbre be timbre.


----------



## Narval (Jun 1, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> I am sorry, you will just have to live with that.


In the end, I guess expressing opinions in a considerate manner must be really difficult for you. Also, I'm pretty sure your "I am sorry" is yet another inconsiderate manner of speaking, so I won't take it literally. However, I think you are a bit too eager to congratulate yourself, fortunately I don't "have to live with" your lack of manners. I don't even "have to" read your posts, and actually at this point I see little reason for that. You are, of course, not the first person I see on the net who seems to take pleasure in offending others, and not even very good at that either. (hmm, sounds almost like a compliment)

Well, I think I'm going to skip your posts, at least on this thread, since you don't seem to have anything positive to share or to say here, only your inconsiderate worn-out opinions.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 1, 2010)

With all due respect, I have studied enough music and can decide for myself what I like and what I don't like. I don't like how Stravinsky uses harmony- it just doesn't do it for me. I love Mahler's use of harmony- it does do it for me. I love Bartok's employment of middle European folk melodies and harmonies in the fabric of his work. Shit, I like his early period when he was emulating Strauss even though it still sounded like Bartok to me. 

If I sound a little annoyed it's because I feel like I'm being told what to like or my personal opinion is being invalidated under the notion that I'm some Zimmer loving noob with no idea of Western music history knowledge. I have studied Stravinsky. I understand his importance in the lineage and development of modern orchestral repertoire. I get it. I keep re-visiting his music to see if I can make a connection. I still cannot at this point. 

As a side comparison- it took me 10 years to get Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. Now it's my favorite film of all time. I get the subtle layers, the impeccable use of Eisensteinian montage, the deliberate pacing to develop the characters, the awesome swagger of Fumio Hayasaka's score. 

I recognize the technical prowess of Igor baby. I just don't like his music as much as I try to. And I personally don't feel as though I owe it to a goddamned person on this forum or anywhere else to validate my own personal opinion. 

Goodnight.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jun 1, 2010)

Again, and I have said this earlier in this thread, people are confusing most influential composer (likely most important) with personal preferences. I know Stravinsky was a more important composer than Ravel, but I prefer Ravel, just my taste.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 1, 2010)

I agree. For what it's worth, I have not heard anything as beautiful from Stravinsky as Ravel's Pavane for a Dead Princess. That is one moving piece. Also love Daphnes et Chloe.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 2, 2010)

I have a question seeing that I only know Stravinsky's 3 ballets, Symphony in 3 Mvmts and Symphony of Psalms. Are there any pieces you guys could recommend that would change my perspective on Igor's music? I get that his sense of rhythm is trend setting but I want to hear examples of a terrific sense of melodic arc and harmonic balance. I find the pieces I know to be very schizoid- sections that radically contrast one another. Parts of The Firebird are amazing and I actually found a section that John Williams used in HOOK (Tink Arrives/Flight to Neverland). 

Also, what would the definitive reading of Le Sacre be? I have Simon Rattle's reading but don't like it. I hear Valery Gergiev has a terrific disc out but I can surmise that part of my disinterest in Stravinsky's music is that I haven't heard good readings of his stuff and perhaps it takes a specific conductor to really wring out all of the good aspects of his style.


----------



## dcardillo (Jun 2, 2010)

Have you listened to Stravinsky's Apollon Musagète?


----------



## handz (Jun 2, 2010)

dcoscina @ Tue Jun 01 said:


> I agree. For what it's worth, I have not heard anything as beautiful from Stravinsky as Ravel's Pavane for a Dead Princess. That is one moving piece. Also love Daphnes et Chloe.



Yeas and many others because there are emotions - its made with emotions. Stravinsky is technicaly interesting but cold, this is main problem for me. Too much thinking but few emotions.


----------



## Narval (Jun 2, 2010)

handz, I think you expect miracles from composers. They're not gods, only music makers. And they have done their job. How about you? Stravinsky is indeed a very rewarding composer if you really immerse yourself into his music. So is Shostakovitch, Ravel, Bach, and everyone else. As dcoscina put it, the task to discover the marvels of music is on the listener's shoulders. The stars are up there, but do you have eyes for them?

It's easy to say: there's nothing there. Thing is, _not seeing_ doesn't equal _not being_. There is a possibility that you just don't have the right lens to look into it. Disregard that possibility and you'll probably feel safe in your short-sighted righteousness. But if you accept that possibility, then you have better chances to find (or build) the necessary lenses. And then, you'll look up and _see._ Also, as a side effect, you will realize that words like "cold" and "less great" are meaningless, trivial, self-degrading, and ridiculous when it comes to composers and their music. They're all great. And _hot._ How about you?


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 2, 2010)

I find most of Vaughan Williams' music a very moving experience. I know Aaron Copland didn't think much of him but I have to say that I much prefer Vaughan Williams' entire canon compared to a few terrific Copland pieces (Lincoln Portrait being one of them).

I'll keep trying with Stravinsky. I do like some of the techniques he pioneered and sections of his music are very inspired but as of this time, I cannot find a single entire piece that resonates with me in the same way as Mahler's Das Leid Von Der Erde does.


----------



## P.T. (Jun 2, 2010)

People like different styles.
To appreciate a different type of composer you would have to listen on their terms.
Some composers are not that interested in emotional impact, they are interested in structure. So you have to look at structure instead of waiting t feel something.

For me, the best use both intellect and emotion.

Even in rock music I am bored with most of it because it's mostly trying to tickle your feelings or bash you on the head with a sledgehammer.
So, I mostly prefer Progressive rock and Jazz/Rock Fusion.
Though there is also much good rock and Pop in many other styles.


----------



## veetguitar (Jun 3, 2010)

Just to round it up. Here are the complete links to shostacovitchs 10 symphony with
Gustavo Dudamel / SBYOV :
(I cant recommend it highly enough. I have listened to three versions of the 10th. This one is otherworldly. Also the best sound that I have experienced with youtube)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zA5lv8u ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRSksNEw ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6LNMNeH ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lYVx_Hd ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZbJOE9zNjw&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LTGNZrk ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dri3apxDvw&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDLGj_S ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23zveX7Q ... re=related


----------



## castaliamusic (Jun 3, 2010)

dcoscina @ Wed Jun 02 said:


> I have a question seeing that I only know Stravinsky's 3 ballets, Symphony in 3 Mvmts and Symphony of Psalms. Are there any pieces you guys could recommend that would change my perspective on Igor's music? I get that his sense of rhythm is trend setting but I want to hear examples of a terrific sense of melodic arc and harmonic balance. I find the pieces I know to be very schizoid- sections that radically contrast one another. Parts of The Firebird are amazing and I actually found a section that John Williams used in HOOK (Tink Arrives/Flight to Neverland).
> 
> Also, what would the definitive reading of Le Sacre be? I have Simon Rattle's reading but don't like it. I hear Valery Gergiev has a terrific disc out but I can surmise that part of my disinterest in Stravinsky's music is that I haven't heard good readings of his stuff and perhaps it takes a specific conductor to really wring out all of the good aspects of his style.



Although based on themes by Pergolesi, the ballet Pulcinella could give you a different perspective. Neoclassicism at it's best.

Regarding recordings of Le Sacre I would recommend Boulez and, obviously, Stravinsky himself


----------



## Narval (Jun 3, 2010)

veetguitar, that was pure delight, thank you! Very well chiseled out performance! This Dudamel dude delivers, doesn't he? 8)


----------



## José Herring (Jun 3, 2010)

Narval @ Thu Jun 03 said:


> veetguitar, that was pure delight, thank you! Very well chiseled out performance! This Dudamel dude delivers, doesn't he? 8)



As a conductor I'm very, very picky about who I like. Dudamel is probably the best conductor that I've heard in a long, long time. Gergiev is another great conductor that doesn't get enough credit imo.


----------



## veetguitar (Jun 4, 2010)

After all, life should be rich. Why not enjoy both, Stravinsky and Shostacovitch?
Here is a link to a pdf of that symphony:
* Edited *
(Off to one more time listening to that piece on youtube)


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 4, 2010)

Yeah that's a great performance of the 10th by Dudamel. 

If you don't think Shosty is amazing after listening to that I have no hope you.


----------



## P.T. (Jun 4, 2010)

Two things I wonder:

What's up with that audience at the Dudamel concert?

I searched Amazon and only found 4 or 5 recordings by him.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 4, 2010)

veetguitar @ Fri Jun 04 said:


> After all, life should be rich. Why not enjoy both, Stravinsky and Shostacovitch?
> Here is a link to a pdf of that symphony:
> * Edited *
> (Off to one more time listening to that piece on youtube)



Yes indeed. I like your philosophy on this!


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 4, 2010)

josejherring @ Thu Jun 03 said:


> Narval @ Thu Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > veetguitar, that was pure delight, thank you! Very well chiseled out performance! This Dudamel dude delivers, doesn't he? 8)



As a conductor I'm very, very picky about who I lòØ    Ö®Ø    Ö®‚Ø    Ö®ƒØ    Ö®„Ø    Ö®…Ø    Ö®†Ø    Ö®‡Ø    Ö®ˆØ    Ö®‰Ø    Ö®ŠØ    Ö®‹Ø    Ö®ŒØ    Ö®Ø    Ö®ŽØ    Ö®Ø    Ö®Ø    Ö®‘Ø    Ö®’Ø    Ö®“Ø    Ö®”Ø    Ö®•Ø    Ö®–Ø    Ö®—Ø    Ö®˜Ø    Ö®™Ø    Ö®šØ    Ö®›Ø    Ö®œØ    Ö®Ø    Ö®žØ    Ö®ŸØ    Ö® Ø    Ö®¡Ø    Ö®¢Ø    Ö®£Ø    Ö®¤Ø    Ö®¥Ø    Ö®¦Ø    Ö®§Ø    Ö®¨Ø    Ö®©Ø    Ö®ªØ    Ö®«Ø    Ö®¬Ø    Ö®­Ø    Ö®®Ø    Ö®¯Ø    Ö®°Ø    Ö®±Ø    Ö®²Ø    Ö®³Ø    Ö®´Ø    Ö®µØ    Ö®¶Ø    Ö®·Ø    Ö®¸Ø    Ö®¹Ø    Ö®ºØ    Ö®»Ø    Ö®¼Ø    Ö®


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 4, 2010)

dcoscina @ Wed Jun 02 said:


> I have a question seeing that I only know Stravinsky's 3 ballets, Symphony in 3 Mvmts and Symphony of Psalms. Are there any pieces you guys could recommend that would change my perspective on Igor's music? I get that his sense of rhythm is trend setting but I want to hear examples of a terrific sense of melodic arc and harmonic balance. I find the pieces I know to be very schizoid- sections that radically contrast one another. Parts of The Firebird are amazing and I actually found a section that John Williams used in HOOK (Tink Arrives/Flight to Neverland).
> 
> Also, what would the definitive reading of Le Sacre be? I have Simon Rattle's reading but don't like it. I hear Valery Gergiev has a terrific disc out but I can surmise that part of my disinterest in Stravinsky's music is that I haven't heard good readings of his stuff and perhaps it takes a specific conductor to really wring out all of the good aspects of his style.



This is not a criticism David as I have great respect for you but based on the composers you say you like I think it is simply a matter of your preference for composers with strong tonal melodies who wear their heart on their sleeves and that is not where Stravinsky lives.

Which is fine. I have never said that there is anything wrong with preferring one composer over another regardless of their place in history. I love Poulenc more than many composers who clearly are more significant. My late composition teacher, Avram David, dismissed my love for Poulenc by saying to me "You really love that French pastry, don't you?"

The best recording of "Le Sacre" is IMHO by Pierre Boulez. Like Stravinsky, he too has been tagged with the "cold" label and it is also not true of him.


----------

