# Question: Do you prefer Stravinsky, Prokofiev or Shostakovich?



## dcoscina (Mar 3, 2008)

In university, more than a few professors lauded Shostakovich with resurrecting the symphonic form in the 20th century but always crapped on Prokofiev citing him as a middle-of-the-road composer. As a young student, I never wished to argue with them on this point because I had not the breadth of listening to both composers' works. As a more mature person (less hair, more wrinkles) I actually prefer Prokofiev on the whole to Shosty. Don't get me wrong, I love his 5th, 7th and underrated 12th symphony but I find Prokofiev's works more filled with dramatics and emotion. Also, he had a very unique harmonic style that is his stamp. 

I know I'm supposed to be in awe of Stravinsky but I don't see him as that different from Prokofiev- except more people made a bigger deal when he decided to go off into his neo-classicism mode. For my money, Prokofiev's 1st Symphony is a dynamite exercise in Classical symphonic form. It adheres to many of the principles of Haydn but works in such a modern way insofar as the harmonic tapestry is concerned.

Anyhow, I would love to hear other people's opinions of these two composers. I know Scott Rogers probably has some compelling and incisive perspectives on these two giants of 20th century concert music.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 3, 2008)

Igor is my favorite composer, and I think it's simply his musical vocabulary that makes him different from anybody else. Plus I always think of his music as having the same sort of composition as Picasso - all these intricate elements that obviously work together as a whole, but you can also look closely and stare at them individually for hours. And then he also wrote the most uniquely beautiful music, such as the chorale in L'Histoire du Soldat and the Dunbarton Oaks concerto.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 3, 2008)

I love all three!

In many ways, they form a continuum with Prokofiev the most accessible, and Shostakovich the least. Stravinsky spans the range.

To me, it's a question of taste and mood. If I had to choose just one, it would be Stravinsky. He work goes from beautiful dances to the ugly, challenging and intellectual. 

Prokofiev wrote with a paint brush, Shostakovich a hammer, and Stravinsky a nice collection of tools.

Generally, I lean towards the hammer, but this is just personal taste, not a judgment of quality.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 3, 2008)

I put both Stravinsky and Prokofiev way ahead of Shostakovich. To be fair, Shostakovich was limited as to what he could write by his government but nonetheless his music was far less groundbreaking and interesting. He was a fine composer but I would rate him more on a par with Bruckner or Mahler than the other two.


----------



## lux (Mar 3, 2008)

Prokofiev then Stravinsky, love both in general. I'm not a huge fan of Shostakovich


----------



## nikolas (Mar 3, 2008)

All 3, but Shost less, apart from his 2nd piano concerto and 10th symphony (and 8th quartet (think it's the 8th) and maybe another work... altogether).

Prokifev comes first.

Along with Igor...

Rire of spring, Symphony in C, Psalms, Firebird, etc...

With Prokofiev there's the everylasting love... Piano sonatas, visions figutives, 2nd, 3rd, 5th concertos for piano, 2nd concerto for violin, 5th Symphony, Romeo and Juliet, The cantata, etc...

What I DON'T like with shostachovich is the limited use of techniques, either because of his staying in Russia, or becasue he just couldn't make it otherwise. Those everlasting runs, again and again in every work... The same ideas in harmony, etc... Stravinsky hcanged SO much, much less Prokofiev but he was still innovative in his own way and was trying to find new ways of expression, through harmony and rhythm sometimes...


----------



## Peter Alexander (Mar 4, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> ...but I would rate him more on a par with Bruckner or Mahler than the other two.



I could settle for that...


----------



## Peter Alexander (Mar 4, 2008)

One other thought. Both Stravinksy and Prokofiev were private students of Rimsky-Korsakov. 

Shostakovich came up after Rimsky and had different role models, notably Mahler.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 4, 2008)

Peter

Here is the only opinion I can give as a layman, having no formal music study (a plebe).
I like and dislike them all. My level of enjoyment in a piece of music is not coloured by who composed it or by dissecting it's architecture and origins. That interest in learning from it would come only if I enjoyed the music.

Always the outsider (where is that violin and my handkerchief) :D 

Ray


----------



## david robinson (Mar 4, 2008)

hi,
dear ole Igor...........
would have loved to see him conduct in the 20's or 30's.

DR9.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 4, 2008)

Igor. His first ballet works are incredible, imho, and there are some passages of The Rite, Firebird and Petrushka that will never leave my head. I can only say that about a few other composers' works. Also, I think his influence on 20th C. film/tv scores is unparalleled.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 4, 2008)

Prokofiev - only because I have seen both Romeo and Juliet and Cinderella in the last few months :D 

Interesting to me how much of 'modern film scores' are 'borrowing' from those two works :lol: 


Having said that -- In a couple months I'll be back to Igor being my favorite again, :wink:


Rob


----------



## handz (Mar 4, 2008)

Prokofiev and Shostakovich first -They have many great symphonies and concertos - and i think many of aspects of their music could be heard in todays movie scores.

Stravinsky is a bit strangefish to me - I love rite of the spring - realy inovative revolutionary piece of music - but other works are mostly chamber like lite compostions which I dont appreciate too much.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 4, 2008)

These are great responses! Thanks gents. I like the analogy Jon made about the hammer and paintbrush. I think I'll use that in the future when describing these composers.

Jay, I'm curious- did I read your post right or did you infer that Mahler and Bruckner aren't as good as Stravinsky and or Prokofiev? The only reason I ask is Mahler is a personal favorite of mine and I have studied his scores intensely for years. I'm still going through Song of the Earth as it is a masterpiece. The level of orchestral complexity is only matched by the advanced harmonic scheme he uses. I would say it is easily as innovative and groundbreaking as anything Stravinsky wrote.

Mahler, more than Bruckner, was a pivotal figure in the development of Western music. While Wagner did usher in chromaticism in harmonic procedures, Mahler took it further and then Schoenberg picked up where he left off. 

Sorry if I seem defensive. I don't mean to be. I know several respected musicians that don't care for Mahler's works but I do think it has been established that he was an important componant in the evolution of western music.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

"would have loved to see him [Igor] conduct in the 20's or 30's."

I have recordings of him conducting some of the pieces he wrote even before the 20s or 30s, but they were made later than that. You can find some on iTunes.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 4, 2008)

dcoscina @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> These are great responses! Thanks gents. I like the analogy Jon made about the hammer and paintbrush. I think I'll use that in the future when describing these composers.
> 
> Jay, I'm curious- did I read your post right or did you infer that Mahler and Bruckner aren't as good as Stravinsky and or Prokofiev? The only reason I ask is Mahler is a personal favorite of mine and I have studied his scores intensely for years. I'm still going through Song of the Earth as it is a masterpiece. The level of orchestral complexity is only matched by the advanced harmonic scheme he uses. I would say it is easily as innovative and groundbreaking as anything Stravinsky wrote.
> 
> ...



No, I did not infer it, I flat out said it 

Please understand that I have HUGE respect for all the composers we are discussing here but even among greats there are levels of greatness.

Mahler is a great composer whose motto was, IMHO, never say musically in 50 bars what you can say in 500. (Bruckner, even more so.) I love much of his work but if it weren't for Lenny Bernstein championing him I do no think he would be as revered today as he is.

I think if Mahler never existed Schoenberg still would have taken to 12 tone music after Wagner.

Stavinsky for me is to composition what Picasso is in 20th century music and although his forays into serial techniques were not as musically successful as pieces like "Le Sacre" or "L'Histoire du Soldat"l, he is an very important figure. 

Prokifiev is highly under-rated IMHO. All you have to do is sit at the piano and play some of his "Visions Fugitives" to see how brilliant he was. He is much, much more than just "Peter and the Wolf" and" Love for 3 Oranges."


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 4, 2008)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I would rate him more on a par with Bruckner or Mahler than the other two.
> ...



Indeed!


----------



## nikolas (Mar 4, 2008)

Patricks empty post is gone. :(

Indeed for some reason Prokofiev seems to be enjoying some fame which is never welcome amongs "serious" composers and cycles! Same with Schnittke. I mention the name Schnittke over here in the university and people start to go red, then green, vomit, have immediate fever, etc... If I mention the name Crumb however they go back to normal and have a bi-orgasm, while they're thinking about the black quartet or something... 

Now, that's SOME way to show your point, huh? :D


----------



## SergeD (Mar 4, 2008)

Stravinsky like Debussy, Lennon, Hendrix and few others have creations that cannot be related to any style or genre of music. They are unique.

SergeD


----------



## handz (Mar 4, 2008)

Hmm never heard about that Prokofiev is not favorited by composers... He is just less modernistic than Shostakovich and Stravinsky, but IMO far more listenable for most people and more played in concert halls. His concertos are famous also Romeo and Juliet, oranges, Lieutenant Kije, Symphony-concerto for Cello.... very famous and played pieces, modernistic but still romantic. and dont forget Peter and the Wolf (i´v heard samples from that used in tons of modern music) 

I think he have most known works from that three composers, but those other came with more modern composing ways and so - today composers who are still trying to make something new and different (and it mostly ends with nonlistenable) like them more for their modernistic aproaches...but I dont think that it is good. 
Classical music Lost its ocnnection with people in these days and it is mainly because composers trying to came with some new methods and sometime realy insane ways of composing.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 4, 2008)

Hey Jay, thanks for the post. I am certain it can be argued whether Schoenberg would have still arrived at serialism without Mahler. Zemlinsky tutored Schoenberg and was dating Alma before she left him for Gustav. It's curious to hear Zemlinsky's music and how similar it sounds to Mahler's in its use of chromatic harmony and long, extended forms. They were contemporaries so it does beg the question as to whether Schoenberg was as influenced by Zemlinsky as Mahler. And it's obvious Wagner was a chief influence on both.

I agree that Prokofiev is underrated. Listening to his original version of his 4th Symphony is terrific. I love his orchestration and the immediacy of his music. also, the guy had monstrous hands! I have played through a bit of his 2nd Piano Concerto and it's NASTY! I just love successive 11ths! 

This is a very cool thread. I'm enjoying the feedback immensely.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 4, 2008)

Shostakovich is easily a better pure composer than Prokofiev imho. He beats him at every turn in form, invention, simplicity, complexity and the basic idea. He has a much wider range of expression as well including orchestration. Don't get me wrong, Prokofiev is great and unique but not in the lineage of Beethoven or even Mahler as Shostakovich is.

Stavinsky is a unique case, initially a sort of French composer _Debussy is my father and Ravel my uncle_ yet highly original even then. Certainly the most rhythmic composer since Beethoven and highly sympathetic to Jazz employing the harmonic and melodic language of say Chick Corea 60 or 70 years ahead of time in pieces like La Histoire du Soldat. His middle period he goes retro with his take on Mozart, is highly criticized but writes several masterpieces that have held up very well and still modern. Finally he goes twelve tone and still maintains his unmistakable voice.

I say Stravinsky and Shostakovich in a sort of tie with both being at the head of their class and Prokofiev the silver medal for providing something we would miss very much without him.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 4, 2008)

Interesting thread. I just received the complete scores for Wagner's Tristan und Isolde and Das Reingold. ($3 each on fleabay, although shipping was a killer). I like both of those pieces and they seem like good points for study on film scoring. First impressions: Das Reingold is 32/12/12/8 strings, 8 horns, 6 harps. Some pages have so many systems that they need to be written on two pages. Hay carumba! 

Back on topic, I like pieces from all three of these composers. They all have different strengths. I can't see where any composer would say, "this guy is crap," aside from Shoenburg of course.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 4, 2008)

Just jumping in to lend you two h's, as it's "Rheingold" and "Reingold" would have a very different meaning 

Ze German


----------



## handz (Mar 4, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Shostakovich is easily a better pure composer than Prokofiev imho. He beats him at every turn in form, invention, simplicity, complexity and the basic idea. He has a much wider range of expression as well including orchestration. Don't get me wrong, Prokofiev is great and unique but not in the lineage of Beethoven or even Mahler as Shostakovich is.




Sorry but I cant agree with that! "Wider range of expression"? Shostakovich have his unique sound -but- his sound is very limiting - his compositons are very limited by his often "ironic & political" writing and so very similiar in mood. If we talk about expression Prokofiev looks to me like more versatile composer.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 4, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Shostakovich is easily a better pure composer than Prokofiev imho. He beats him at every turn in form, invention, simplicity, complexity and the basic idea. He has a much wider range of expression as well including orchestration. Don't get me wrong, Prokofiev is great and unique but not in the lineage of Beethoven or even Mahler as Shostakovich is.



I respect your opinion but I do disagree. If you listen to many pieces that Shostakovich wrote 30 years after some Prokofiev pieces, harmonically they sound less modern.

I feel much about Shostakovich as I do about Andrew Wyeth. He did great realistic paintings but at that point in tie he was reinventing the wheel. I would much rather look at Kandinsky's work.

But for that matter, Charles Ives beats them both in that regard. IMHO he was the first truly original American composer. There is no Shostakovicn piece iI would put in the same league as the "Concord Sonata", or "Three Places in New England."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2008)

The great Jay Asher:

"Stavinsky for me is to composition what Picasso is in 20th century music"

The infamous NB:

"Plus I always think of his music as having the same sort of composition as Picasso - all these intricate elements that obviously work together as a whole, but you can also look closely and stare at them individually for hours."

Kinda disproves the idea that great minds think alike, dunnit?


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 4, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> The great Jay Asher:
> 
> "Stavinsky for me is to composition what Picasso is in 20th century music"
> 
> ...



Great minds DO think alike, but so so mediocre minds


----------



## Stephen W (Mar 4, 2008)

great minds think a *lot*... mediocre minds, not so much o-[][]-o


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Mar 4, 2008)

Stravinsky. The Firebird Suite is my favorite piece of all time. I've probably listened to that piece a thousand times (no joke), and I always learn something with each listen. Only really discovered Rite of Spring a year ago or so, and have probably listened to that piece a couple hundred times.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 4, 2008)

PolarBear @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Just jumping in to lend you two h's, as it's "Rheingold" and "Reingold" would have a very different meaning
> 
> Ze German



Thanks, is "Reingold" German for something naughty?  

"I must have bigger orchestra!! I vil have ze biggest orchestra in ze verld!!"


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 4, 2008)

handz @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Dave Connor @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Shostakovich is easily a better pure composer than Prokofiev imho. He beats him at every turn in form, invention, simplicity, complexity and the basic idea. He has a much wider range of expression as well including orchestration. Don't get me wrong, Prokofiev is great and unique but not in the lineage of Beethoven or even Mahler as Shostakovich is.
> ...



Really? I have never failed to identify a Prokofiev piece within a few bars. The same could be said of a certain period of Shostakovich but not his complete works. 

You would have to be familier with ALL his works including symphonies such as 4 and 15, his theatre and ballet works, operas, string quartets, concertos, solo piano and incidental music. Prokofiev retreated (and admitted such) musically due to pressure from the Soviet regime. Shostakovich became far more experimental later on.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 4, 2008)

synthetic @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> Thanks, is "Reingold" German for something naughty?


No, no. No sweat! It's that "Rheingold" (Rhinegold) is a magic toy the girls possess and protect. This toy is in the depth of the river Rhine, so the story builds around that. Whereas "Reingold" would mean that it's some piece of pure 24 carat gold. Not that it's not, figuratively spoken, but one thing is materialized when the other stands for a fabulous, more or less symbolic thing. Actually I'd say that "Rheingold" is the more naughty thing of both... you have to forswear love and forge a ring with it to get on the ultimate power curse. "Reingold" just needs a healthy purse 

PolarBear


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 4, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> handz @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> ...



i guarantee you that if you are not familiar with them, I could play some of the "Visions Fugitives" and you would not quickly guess Prokofiev.


----------



## handz (Mar 4, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Tue Mar 04 said:


> handz @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Tue Mar 04 said:
> ...




Hmm... I have heard All of Shostakovichs Concertos, symphonies and quartets many many times and for me he still using his satiric ironic tone in most of his work.

Shostakovich was experimental on the begining of course - Symphony no. 1 for Ex. later Comunist regime start to critize him for his compositions and he is aware of that so he ust start write in a way that comunist leaders would like more (symphony no 5 for ex). He again begin compositionaly free later after the war in his last quartets and symphonies.


----------



## david robinson (Mar 4, 2008)

hi again,
i think "Oedipus Rex" by Igor is most underrated.
this has a beautiful aria (Jocasta), which never fails to bring tears to these old eyes.
problem is, most of the time it's murdered by overly ambitious sopranos.
romantic, it's not. it's as cold as the stone it was chiselled out of. supposed to be like that.
the feeling's in the notes he wrote.
DR9.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Mar 5, 2008)

For those that love Stravinsky, check out this incredible deal:
22 CDs of just about everything that he wrote for $31!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-5017886-5808709?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=stravinsky&x=0&y=0 (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/10 ... ky&amp;x=0&amp;y=0)


----------



## aeneas (Mar 5, 2008)

First, to answer the question: I prefer none. I love Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and many other composers. I can prefer this piece over that other piece, but not this composer over that other composer.

Second, I think it's a disgrace for a composer to talk (also, publicly) *in negative terms* about the so-called compositional "limits" of another composer. That sounds to me like old-ladies gossip on maidens' fictive shortcomings. So, I expect you guys to edit out those negative comments on Shostakovich (Prokofiev, Stravinsky) from your posts. Or else.

Third, feel free to publicly worship your favorite composer(s), but not at the expense of another composer's reputation and memory.

Thanks!
A lover of Shostakovich's (Prokofiev's, Stravinsky's, etc.) music


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 5, 2008)

I just bought the complete Prokofiev Symphonies conducted by Valery Gergiev- great reading of the original 4th Symphony although I prefer the Riccardo Muti reading of the Third Symphony.

I also ordered Shostakovich's complete symphonies by Bernard Haitink. Also a great interpreter of his music.

Stravinsky is a harder nut for me to crack. Never have been to enamoured with his music but I keep returning to it once in a while with fresh ears.


----------



## handz (Mar 5, 2008)

Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> For those that love Stravinsky, check out this incredible deal:
> 22 CDs of just about everything that he wrote for $31!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-5017886-5808709?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=stravinsky&x=0&y=0 (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/10 ... ky&amp;x=0&amp;y=0)



This is great!! thanx for the link. :shock:


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 5, 2008)

I can't believe you guys are arguing over this 

What about my homie Rachmaninoff??? I vote for him!


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 5, 2008)

I'm with nikolas on this matter- this is a free forum with which to discuss music in positive and critical perspectives. 

I find it fascinating hearing from fellow musician's opinions on the three composers. I like that we all have our reasons for liking or disliking a composer's works. 

While I still lump Mahler up there with guys like Stravinsky, I do respect where Jay is coming from as well as enjoyed his perspectives on Prokofiev. Neat! 

Edit- Mussorgsky is more a late 19th Century composer and thus I did not include him. I would in the Russian 5 however- as for Rachmaninov, yeah, I guess he slipped under the radar because he was easily the most popular of the bunch (at least with non-academic musicians). in spite of the sour grapes from academia, Rachmaninov did have solid compositional chops. His Symphonic Dances which were written towards the end of his life were fantastic as were his Piano Concertos, especially his 2nd. I also heard his 2nd Symphony live and it rocked.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 5, 2008)

dcoscina @ Wed 05 Mar said:


> another perfectly good thread ruined....sigh


Perfectly good? First take back the negative comments towards Shostakovich, and then it will be a somewhat cleaner thread, far from perfectly good though.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 5, 2008)

who's going to make me? 

p.s. I never said nor implied anything negative about Shosty- just that I prefer Prokofiev's general output more.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 5, 2008)

Taste is a funny thing. Many composers like Mahler, but for some reason, I've never found his music stimulating. Same with Sibelius. 

It's almost like a protein and an enzyme. Some match, leading to lots of activity. When they don't match, everything remains static. That's probably the difference between music and JABOD (just a bunch of notes): if the notes stimulate you, it's music (to you).

I still remember the first time I heard 12-tone music. It instantly clicked for me. It was odd and ugly, yet musically stimulating. Then again, it took some years before I really "got" certain styles of jazz. It's not a matter of better or worse, it was just a matter of what I connected with.

Given that, if someone doesn't "get" Shostakovich, they should avoid listening to his stuff! It can be ugly, and if it doesn't stimulate you, it must sound absolutely horrible!

I've decided not to try to learn to appreciate Mahler and Sibelius. I instinctively find them dull and boring, and they haven't improved with time. Why should I fight it? But that's not to say that they are "bad". If they stimulate you, enjoy them to the fullest!


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 5, 2008)

Jon, try Mahler's Kindertotenlieder. It's more compact and intimate. Very moving stuff too. Amazing exercise in orchestration as well. 

As for Shosty, I love his 12th Symphony. I first heard it in the Eisenstein film called October. The rapid montage editing was beautifully mirrored by the first movement's quick string and wind 16th note runs. Amazing.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 5, 2008)

dcoscina @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> Jon, try Mahler's Kindertotenlieder. It's more compact and intimate.


Thanks for the recommendation. 

I think the aspects of Mahler that haven't worked for me are 1) his orchestrations are so thick that I find that they lose character and become "mushy", and 2) he goes on too long without introducing enough change. 

Something more compact (in time and instrumentation) might just work for me. And again, I don't blame Mahler for the quirks of my personal taste and my impatience. I don't require him to write for me.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 5, 2008)

no worries. He just simply might not be to your taste. I really like his adagio movements from his symphonies although I would say they are overtly emotional. I don't mind that though.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 5, 2008)

For film, overtly emotional is often exactly what the director wants. Nothing the matter with that!


----------



## handz (Mar 5, 2008)

My feelings are sme as Jon´s here, Mahler and especially Sibelius never touched my emotions. 

But I could recomend Kindertotenlieder as well - this one I like very much.


----------



## C.M.Dess (Mar 8, 2008)

Prokofieff . . . I can relate to his progressions. But not for his solo pieces. Romeo and Juliet has some great symphonic offerings.

The 3rd piano concerto is a one of a kind concerto.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 8, 2008)

aeneas. I simply said that Shostakovich had a _wider range of musical expression_ than Prokofiev meaning that he covered and explored more musical territory. That's not a criticsm just an observation and a response to the thread question. I didn't say he was a dreadful hack. I would only say that about someone like Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Rachmaninov! I think his symphonies are where you see what a towering composer he is. They are true masterpieces far more classic in nature than his gushing romanitc works (which are also great but tend to pigeon hole him as to his range - he's really great and unsung to some degree I think.)


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 16, 2008)

[quote:d754ò>Ô   tCb>Ô   tCc>Ô   tCd>Ô   tCe>Ô   tCf>Ô   tCg>Ô   tCh>Ô   tCi>Ô   tCj>Ô   tCk>Ô   tCl>Ô   tCm>Ô   tCn>Ô   tCo>Ô   tCp>Ô   tCq>Ô   tCr>Ô   tCs>Ô   tCt>Ô   tCu>Ô   tCv>Ô   tCw>Ô   tCx>Ô   tCy>Ô   tCz>Ô   tC{>Ô   tC|>Õ   tC}>Õ   tC~>Õ   tC>Õ   tC€>Õ   tC>Õ   tC‚>Õ   tCƒ>Õ   tC„>Õ   tC…>Õ   tC†>Õ   tC‡>Õ   tCˆ>Õ   tC‰>Õ   tCŠ>Õ   tC‹>Õ   tCŒ>Õ   tC>Õ   tCŽ>Õ   tC>Õ   tC>Õ   tC‘>Õ   tC’>Õ   tC“>Õ   tC”>Õ   tC•>Õ   tC–>Õ   tC—>Õ   tC˜>Õ   tC™>Õ   tCš>Õ   tC›>Õ   tCœ>Õ   tC>Õ   tCž>Õ   tCŸ>Õ   tC >Õ   tC¡>Õ   tC¢>Õ   tC£>Õ   tC¤>Õ   tC¥>Õ   tC¦>Õ   tC§


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Apr 4, 2008)

dcoscina @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> Jon, try Mahler's Kindertotenlieder. It's more compact and intimate. Very moving stuff too. Amazing exercise in orchestration as well.
> 
> As for Shosty, I love his 12th Symphony. I first heard it in the Eisenstein film called October. The rapid montage editing was beautifully mirrored by the first movement's quick string and wind 16th note runs. Amazing.


Hey Jon,

First thought of Kindertotenleider also. Or have a listen to this Ruckert-leider, all the beauty of the universe in one little song:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VHVWH2/ref=dm_mu_dp_trk10 (Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen)

Shostakofievinsky's stuff is nice also.


----------

