|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.189.10.20
In Reply to: RE: Permanent--OK. In my book, that leaves open "For better, or worse?" posted by John Marks on August 16, 2015 at 15:59:07
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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: