|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.223.28.179
George Szell's ghost.... One year after his death.....
Stokowski might be the greatest conductor ever for modern music..... (Sorry Pierre Monteux..... Sorry Pierre Boulez...... )
This is the first time I've heard of composer Reinhold Glière ...... Stok conducts his Third Symphony..... This is not just another modern composer, to my ears.
I will make just one comment.... This performance, which took place at Severance Hall, might rival George Szell's Tokyo Sibelius Two, one year earlier, as the greatest orchestral exhibition I've ever heard.....
George Szell's ghost...........
Follow Ups:
Well, how about that!
I can also imagine that for a composer, that choice was really no choice at all.
Be that as it may, one of Arkivmusic.com's recommendations is for their just-in-time replicated CDR of a 1971 Philadelphia Ormandy recording that, although cut, does run more than 58 minutes, so there is 20 minutes more music than the Stokowski version.
My semi-educated guess is that assuming that that was originally released as one Dynagroove LP, that the cuts were made with a view toward putting as much music on two sides of an LP as possible.
Well, this has been my first encounter with Il'ya Mouro'metz in a dog's age.
Thanks, I guess.
jm
Rachmoninoff supposedly approved the "cuts" to his 2nd Symphony as well..... But what was cut out IMO ruined the work.
The truth most likely is, these composers agreed to the cuts for a very good reason: to get their works performed (and recorded) more often, to get more royalty payments. Stravinsky created three suites out of The Firebird, none of which (imo and also in the opinion of many critics) preserve the dramatic impact of the original complete ballet score.
Nowadays there is really no technological limit on how long a recording can last. Even the old-fashioned CD can give you more than an hour. But without these modified versions, you would probably hear these pieces in live performance far less often.
I never bothered to look into it myself, because whereas I think Debussy is for the ages, I think that Stravinsky is a creature of his time...
Anyone can say anything they want--over at Critics Corner, some people think I have been de-bus-ustrated.
I was told that Stravinsky would recall the sets of orchestral parts that were verging on Public Domain status and issue revised ones with a new start date. Given the the rental of orchestral parts was in many places for a lot of time the principal revenue stream to the composer, this would have been understandable.
Now, as I understand it, the US Congress kept revising the copyright law so that at least during Stravinsky's life, everything that ever had been registered for copyright remained in copyright as long as it was renewed, but he and his publishers had no idea that would happen, and in any event the US was not the only market for his works.
JM
I've understood that copyrights were to prevent "unauthorized use" of the music, but it has gotten to the point where such restrictions have ended up preventing a lot of new people from becoming familiar with the music. Which translates to lost music sales. I believe this has hurt the artists far worse than the "unauthorized use" itself.
I read that as well. Stravinsky spent much of his long life dealing with money troubles, but they may have been largely of his own making: He was willing to compose and perform and record, but apparently not take a teaching position that would have paid a reliable salary. And he liked to live well.
He took up conducting his own music when he was over 40, never having conducted in public before, no doubt mainly because he needed performing income. His early efforts on record were dreadful (imo), but over the years he sure became an expert in conducting his own music, no?
And imho, his impact on Western music will be permanent.
I actually view him as a dead end.
Quick, name a great composer whose major influence was Prokofiev...
That's that way I feel about Stravinsky.
Whereas Debussy's fingerprints are all over so much modern music--and Messaien I think will in the future be regarded as more influential than he has been.
But that's just my personal take.
JM
John, I must disagree. The influence was very much the other way around - Prokofiev was very influenced by Stravinsky, as has just about every composer after Stravinsky. Prokofiev studied Stravinsky's scores a great deal, and was very jealous of him and his success. Stravinsky was much like his close friend Pablo Picasso - he could do anything, in any style, with ease; and like Picasso, still had incredible vitality and creativity until his dying day. Only Mozart is really comparable to him in all of music history in this respect - being able to write in pretty much every musical form. Stravinsky's influence on music, especially in the areas of rhythm and harmony, has been far beyond Prokofiev's, or Debussy's, for that matter. I do agree with you that Messiaen is underrated, though he will not approach Stravinsky's status.
Stravinsky's book, Poetics of Music, has also been very influential in the world of aesthetics.
Although Prokofiev went through a "bad boy" phase (Symphony No. 2, Seven - They are Seven, etc.) I don't see much of a Stravinsky influence on Prokofiev. For all his rhythmic propulsion, Prokofiev was at heart a lyricist - almost a romantic (Romeo and Juliet, etc.). Frankly, I think that's one factor that compelled his return to Russia: that he sized up the predominant trends in Western European music and concluded, "Uh-uh - not for me!". He became content with his position as the foremost Soviet composer of the twentieth century, even enduring the dangers of Stalinist repression in the process.
I've read several biographies of Prokofiev, and, aside from Rite of Spring, I know of no Stravinsky work which was a large influence on Prokofiev. And even the influence of the Rite was temporary. I'd be interested if you could elaborate on your claim - thanks! ;-)
Hi Chris - most of your post actually agrees with mine, not sure why you are confused, but here is some elaboration. As you say, Prokofiev went back to Russia. Some biographers may have put a positive spin on this, but basically, he HAD to go back, as he was very unsuccessful in Paris, and it was clear he was not going to be able to make much of a living outside Russia. This is why he resented the success of Stravinsky so much. It is well documented that Prokofiev was a very bitter man, and usually not very pleasant to be around socially. After he returned to Russia, he did deliberately try to remove much of the Stravinsky influence in his writing, but it is still there, especially rhythmically. It is often not such a simple matter as piece x influenced piece y, it is much more subtle than that. Even Prokofiev's famous lyricism was somewhat influenced by Stravinsky, particularly in the angularity of much of the melodic lines, and the way they jump octaves. This is also quite similar to the octave-displacement of the serialists, by the way. Stravinsky's early writing was very lyrical - check out his student work, Symphony in E-flat. Even the Firebird still has a great deal of basically Romantic lyricism. Prokofiev also loved Stravinsky's "wrong-note" harmony, and often used it himself, in his own way.
As rbolaw said, of course Stravinsky was very much an admirer of Prokofiev's music, and was very open and honest about it, unlike Prokofiev. My post was in response to John's, who seemed to me to be denying any influence whatsoever. It was simply impossible for any Russian (or any other) composer after Stravinsky not to be influenced by him - he was too towering of a figure, widely (and rightly, IMO) regarded as the best living composer for pretty much his entire life. The only other composer I personally would put in Stravinsky's class during his lifetime was Bartok.
I still think you and Roy are giving Stravinsky far too much credit.
I don't think Prokofiev resented the success of Stravinsky so much: in fact, Prokofiev was doing well enough as a pianist, but wanted to devote more time to composing. I think this is what he resented (i.e., having to devote too much of his time to pianism rather than to composing) - not Stravinsky. I'll certainly be happy to concede the point however if you have evidence that he resented Stravinsky.
Yes, he was not pleasant to be around socially, but I don't believe there's any documentation that he was bitter. You say that after he returned to Russia, he tried to remove as much of Stravinsky's influence as possible, but you never established that that influence was present in the first place. After all, Prokofiev's Toccata was written in 1912, as were a number of his rhythmically propulsive compositions (Sarcasms, Second Piano Sonata). Stravinsky's Rite of Spring wasn't performed until 1913, so who's influencing whom?
As for octave displacements, you yourself point to the serialists as big practitioners of that technique. Why does Stravinsky get the credit for inventing this technique? As I see it, it was just part of the Zeitgeist
Yes, I agree that there is some lyrical writing in some of Stravinsky's early works - but I don't agree at all that it's the same kind of lyricism you find in Prokofiev.
I guess it's just a YMMV kind of thing?
Hi Chris - again, I don't think you and I are really in disagreement here. I never said that Stravinsky should be given total credit for octave displacement, and I made it clear that Prokofiev's lyricism was quite different from Stravinsky's. These guys of course did not just imitate each other, but that doesn't mean that there was no influence at all. Again, my post was in response to the original poster, who did seem to deny that there was any influence at all on Prokofiev from Stravinsky, which I think most musicians would agree is absurd on the face of it. As the person considered the greatest living composer for decades, how could ANY composer NOT have been influenced by Stravinsky? This is all I was driving at, and I gave a few very obvious examples. This would not even be considered up for debate, among musicians. Of course, Stravinsky was also influenced by Prokofiev, again a fact that would not be in debate. The two men, after all, were constantly being compared to each other, especially in Russia.
As for the resentment on Prokofiev's part, that is something mentioned in every course I took on 20th century music, and have read in every bio I have ever read on either composer. I had a double major in theory during my undergraduate, and "specialized," if you will, in Stravinsky, so perhaps I have read quite a bit more than the average musician has on him in particular, but I am nevertheless very surprised that you apparently haven't encountered that before! Prokofiev is certainly one of the ultimate "i've got a chip on my shoulder" composers - not just about Stravinsky, of course, but in general. A big part of it was what you mentioned about having to perform too much, giving him less time than he wanted to devote to composition. He felt very under appreciated, much like Bartok did later in the century, though in Bartok's case, the resentment was directed more at Shostakovitch, witness especially his hilarious parody of the Shostakovitch's Seventh Symphony in the Concerto for Orchestra.
And just for fun, I came across a great Stravinsky quote on Facebook this morning:
"The trouble with music appreciation in general is that people are taught to have too much respect for music; they should be taught to love it instead."
Actually, I still think that Prokofiev's music is insufficiently appreciated in comparison to Stravinsky's or (ugh!) Shostakovitch's. So maybe I'M the one who's bitter! LOL!
BTW, I had read that Stravinsky was worried that, at least for awhile, his spot as the foremost modernist composer might be rivaled by another Igor. . . Igor Markevitch! Strange how things turn out sometimes.
Hi Chris - I remember coming across that as well, back when I was in undergrad and had never yet encountered anything by Markevitch, LOL!
I wouldn't say that Prokofiev's music is under appreciated, at all, especially among musicians, though I suppose you are referring to the general concert going public in this case. I would guess that there is currently more Prokofiev programmed than Stravinsky these days, if only because of the piano concerti. Romeo and Juliet is also probably quite a bit more performed than even the Rite.
The piece of Prokofiev's that I try to recommend to people is his ballet Cinderella. Fantastic music.
From what I've read, Prokofiev could be downright uncouth and boorish, a childish genius who never entirely grew up. His lack of basic social skills could explain his lack of financial success in the west that you discuss.
OTOH, Stravinsky apparently also had trouble making enough money, though he was a towering figure in western music and spoke several languages eloquently. IMO, his problem was, he was neither a great pianist (though he could play his own music convincingly enough) nor a great conductor (though he eventually became skilled enough in conducting his own music). He was also apparently uninterested in teaching or administrative jobs that would have paid a steady salary. Yet he loved to live well.
I have to agree with Learsfool, and actually, you could argue the influence went both ways. Stravinsky was also a big admirer of Prokofiev and once called him the second (to him) greatest Russian composer. Interesting that the Classical Symphony predates Pulcinella by a couple of years, (1917 to 1919) and Prokofiev's first violin concerto predates Stravinsky's by more than that (1923 to 1931, approximately).But I have to give Stravinsky the crown as the king of modern neoclassicism. Later great neoclassical pieces by Prokofiev, like the flute/violin sonata Op. 94, and much of the music of Milhaud, Poulenc, Hindemith and Bartok wouldn't have been the same without Stravinsky.
Ed.: Interesting that later 20th century French composers like Messiaen, Jolivet and Boulez explicitly rejected the modern neoclassicism of early 20th-century Paris, but in very different ways.
I hear the influence of Debussy, Ravel and Stravinsky everywhere in 20th century music, both "serious" and popular, though you could argue it began to wane in the later stages of the century.
Edits: 08/18/15
I guess that was what I was asserting (or trying to anyway!) - that the influence went both ways. It was by no means just that Stravinsky influenced Prokofiev, which (if I read Learsfool's post correctly) it seemed he was contending. Nor do I think Stravinsky's influence on Prokofiev was particularly significant, aside from a couple of works.
Also, I'm not sure that I'd characterize that Op. 94 Flute Sonata as particularly neo-classical - for instance, that opening theme is pretty luscious romanticism in my book, and I don't think Stravinsky had much of an influence on it. Moreover, I don't think that Stravinsky is necessarily the king of (or originator of) neo-classicism either - geez, think of such composers as Respighi and Strauss (Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, Dance Suite after Couperin!), or even Tchaikovsky (we can't forget Mozartiana or the Rococo Variations, or large parts of the Queen of Spades). In this respect, Stravinsky was just one of many IMHO.
Also, far from waning, Prokofiev's influence extended to the latter couple of decades in the 20th century - check out James Horner's music for Star Trek II, where his "homage" to Prokofiev is sometimes note-for-note! ;-)
(OK, I concede that there's a lot of Stravinsky influence in parts of John Williams' Star Wars music!)
We'll just have to disagree on some of these points, but when I said the Debussy-Ravel-Stravinsky influence was "waning", I really meant we have moved into the post-modern world, and there are now other movements and influences taking hold in both popular and serious music, and in our culture generally.
Even post-modernists like Toru Takemitsu, Arvo Part and Philip Glass are now part of the old guard and have long since had their impact on popular culture, including numerous movie scores.
That's the way art is, it just keeps movin' ahead, though I don't downplay the significance of conservatives and traditionalists, they're always a factor, though sometimes forgotten by history.
As long as they are part of American culture, Stravinsky will be as well.
Today I saw Minions with my family at a local cineplex. Not a potential all time classic imho, but it did have a soundtrack that featured Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, the Kinks, the Turtles, -- and Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf.
Sting did a hit song based on a theme from Lieutenant Kije. Charlie Parker used The Firebird in one of his most famous numbers.
As for "serious" composers influenced by Prokofiev, I can easily name a prominent current one: Peteris Vasks.
The Santana song "Love of My Life" ("Supernatural" album) was from the famous theme of the third movement of Brahms Third Symphony........
Gliere also wrote quite a bit of chamber music, especially for the horn. There are four short pieces of his that are part of the hornist's core recital repertoire. He is by no means an unknown composer, and some of his music is performed quite often. Almost any horn player anywhere has performed at least one of his works.
Gliere's 3rd Symphony 'Ilya Murometz'is one of the great "forgotten" symphonies, a monumental excursion rooted in Russian myth. It is well worth hearing -- in its full score -- and with notes to provide a sense if the mythological setting.I like some if Stokowski's recordings, but he absolutely *butchered* this one. Since you are unfamiliar with the symphony, you are probably unaware of how drastically Stokowski chopped it up. It typically clocks in at 75 to 82 minutes for the complete score, depending on tempi. So he excised more than half of the score.
The recording that most closely follows Gliere's tempo markings is by Farberman. The remastered CD has very good RBCD audio. This remains my top choice. It takes some time, as it us the complete score.
But some prefer a slightly brisker tempo. Downes clocks in about 5 minutes faster for the entire symphony. Others prefer the performance by Rakhlin, which was fine on LP, but the transfer to CD was crappy.
The best performance overall, to my ears, was Scherchen with the Vienna State Opera orchestra. Truly epic in scope and performance. The mono LP version is terrific on a mono turntable, but YMMV with the digitized MP3. To my knowledge, it was never released on commercial CD.
Gliere was not an insignificant composer. His horn concerto is still played, as are the Red Poppy Suite and the Bronze Horseman. His Concerto for Coloratura Soprano and Orchestra is perhaps his most performed work, a beautiful piece.
It us unfortunate that so many outstanding composers, very well known during their lifetime, have now been tossed aside by the continual constriction of the core repertoire.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Edits: 08/15/15
I got a serviceable copy courtesy of the Salvation Army. The sound is decent as you say, not surprisingly since it is on the Westminster label. Scherchen and the VSO recorded a lot for Westminster after the war, including a good Mahler's 5th.
I've always liked Scherchen. Some if the Westminsters have been transferred to CD or digital download, including recordings by Scherchen, but not the Scherchen Gliere 3, so far as I know.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
I'm listening to a different performance, the duration is roughly double the Stok performance.
I'm listening to the Sir Edward Downes/BBC performance...... It sounds like a totally different piece of music.
There are some other performances that are almost three times the duration of the Stok performance..... In "Mahler 3rd" territory here, in regard to duration......
The Downes recording is very close to complete score, and is well performed. Stokowski really did Gliere no favors with all his cuts, but maybe he figured audiences would not sit still for a symphony requiring 80 minutes.
The Scherchen recording with the Vienna State Opera Orchestra is probably the best overall. It captures the epic feel of the piece. But it's mono LP audio. Sounds good with my mono turntable, though.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
It sounded like Stok wanted to turn this into a "showpiece"..... I can see how the full score could make a few patrons start glancing at their watches.....
In retrospect, I would have enjoyed the Stok/Cleveland performance a lot more, had it been the full score. I was never a fan of cutting long works shorter (except for repeats)..... In the case of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Symphony, it seems like the most exciting parts of the work were what was cut out.
Knowing the full score, the only aspect of the Stok performance that still interests me is the playing by the Cleveland Orchestra..... But that's it.
That was why I mentioned "orchestral exhibition".... I have no idea how the work is supposed to sound like....
I've often cited people being "wow'ed" by flawed performances... I may have fallen into that trap with this performance.
It's on blu-ray audio, and I keep meaning to re-listen to it because I didn't know quite what to make of it and I'm fearful that a re-listening will confirm it to be a bit superficial and perfunctory (somewhat like the other hi-rez recording of this work - the Botstein/LSO performance on SACD). OTOH, the Falletta performance does have some interesting details of balance sometimes.
I have the Farberman/RPO recording and it's very fine in many ways, although there are little problems here too, such the lapses of ensemble (e.g., that part where the snare drum gets noticeably ahead of the rest of the orchestra - probably a result of recording in long takes with little editing). But I basically agree with you that it's a tough choice between Farberman and Downes.
Some cool stuff, but goes on and on, AIR.
Botstein is advertised as being the complete score, but it us not. I'm generally a fan if Botstein, but I got rid if this one.Although the audio of the Falletta recording is good if you crank up the volume in surround, to me she misses the mark in too many places. She takes the beginning too fast, losing all the atmosphere, and the battle segment is sloppy and flabby. It needs to be intense, with sharp edges. I'm not sure if that is the limitations if the orchestra, or lack of rehearsal, or her lack of insight into the program.
To me, both if these recordings just fail to capture the "epic" essence if this monumental symphony.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Edits: 08/15/15
You may have heard Glière's "Russian Sailor's Dance" from his "Red Poppy" ballet.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
???
All we Card-Carrying, Certified YOUNG BAROQUE FASCISTS (at least he can make fun of himself, a reader mused) did not bother to heap scorn on that ailing warhorse...
Of course, back then, I turned the corners of my mouth down at Dvorak's Trios.
A Great Man once said: If a young man is never an Original Instruments Fascist, he has no head; and if he does not appreciate Mahler when he is 50, he has no heart.
OR, words to that effect.
I had not known that my favorite Irish out-of wedlock tyke had grown up to conduct G-3, so, I will listen to it with avidity and IN ALL PROPER REPENTENCE AND HUMILITY!!!
Thanks,
JM
I never even heard of him, until I stumbled across that video.It struck me as an amazing performance, yet apparently, to someone more familiar with the piece, it was a butcher job.... (I've used this term myself to describe a performance.) I'll take his word.
I posted the video mainly because I never recalled Stokowski conducting the Cleveland Orchestra.... At least since Szell became the music director. (I don't recall Ormandy or Solti conducting Cleveland either.) Whether the read of the work was awry, I thought he got the type of playing out of the Cleveland Orchestra that only Szell could generate..... (I've never heard a performance like this from Szell's successor, Lorin Maazel.)
The amazing thing about Stokowski was he was 15 years older than George Szell, yet conducted Szell's orchestra a year after Szell's passing.... Stok was 89 at the time. He died at 95.
Edits: 08/15/15
Well, I am the last person to be in a position to make valid criticisms of a piece I formerly made fun of.
As far as the orchestral playing goes, it was white-hot. Which I think is a mixed blessing. There was an undertone it seemed to me that the orchestra was playing out of fear rather than love, but, perhaps it's not possible to play that piece in a way that conveys love. I honestly envisioned the orchestra members might have been sitting on remote-controlled electric cattle prods...
Or I just might be projecting.
jm
Had I known when I posted the link what I know now, I wouldn't have even posted it.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: