Stravinsky was a practiced dismisser: "Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's always by Villa-Lobos?"

 

Much like his good friend, Nabokov.

 

My sister on Messiaen: 'That sounds like a kid banging a piano'

I think it is a fair criticism, notably biased against naiveté, but still. Too many notes at the same time all the time, usually not contrapuntally.

I guess the closest Stravisnky got to your average Messiaen is this.

 

My sister on Messiaen: 'That sounds like a kid banging a piano'

My sister on Schoenberg's Piano Concerto: "That sounds like kid banging a piano while an adult tries to play it properly."

 

I would ask my sister what she thinks of Penderecki's Threnody - but as she's currently carrying a baby, I don't think it's a very good idea.

Stravinsky didn't dismiss Schoenberg so atonality/ serialism is not the problem.

It kind of sounds like criticism of days gone by (e.g “I can compare Le Carnival Romain by Berlioz to nothing but the caperings and gibberings of a big baboon, over-excited by a dose of alcoholic stimulus.”)

Just that I wouldn't expect someone of Stravinsky stature to dismiss Messaien as someone who wrote gibberish.

 

I think I understand Stravinsky on this one. Messiaen sounds very pretentious at some points.

 

If Messiaen was pretentious, Stravinsky was egomaniacal.

 

I don't listen to enough Messiaen to adequately say one thing or another, but I will say that nothing Stravinsky said about anything should ever, ever be taken seriously for the rest of human history.

 

That's rather extreme! What did Stravinsky ever do to you?!

 

Basically just a very arch (and quotable) way of saying: too many notes.

 

From a theoretical perspective, I can understand the "too many notes" idea, but when using just one's ears, Messiaen's use of those notes to create an extraordinary pallet of colors is sorta...a nice thing.

 

I know he liked Elliott Carter too.

 

"I have all around me the spectacle of composers who, after their generation has had its decade of influence and fashion, seal themselves off from further development and from the next generation (as I say this, exceptions come to mind, Krenek, for instance). Of course, it requires greater effort to learn from one's juniors, and their manners are not invariably good. But when you are seventy-five and your generation has overlapped with four younger ones, it behooves you not to decide in advance "how far composers can go," but to try to discover whatever new thing it is makes the new generation new." (Stravinsky and Craft 1959, 133)

He's not that unreasonable doncha think?

 

Woodduck: The witty, knowing, drily articulated bon mot of dismissal - concise, stated more to impress than to convince, and phrased so as to be unanswerable - was well-practiced by Stravinsky, and to me it corresponds, in style if not in content, to the emotionally detached cleverness I find in much of his music. It strikes me as a quintessentially French art-form, an art of brilliantly crafted surfaces, with which mere significance is not to interfere. What does it mean? I don't know - but isn't it effective?

tdc: But can you not ask the same question about any non-programmatic music? What does Beethoven's last Piano Sonata mean?

What does Bach's Brandenburg Concerto no. 4 mean? I don't know, but isn't it effective?

I find plenty of deep significance in the music of Debussy and Ravel. Admittedly, I do find Stravinsky a harder nut to crack. Point being the suggestion that French music is somehow less significant or meaningful than other (German?) music is nonsense.

In the early 20th century many artists I think were exploring more emotionally detached perspectives, (at least in terms of outward expression). The music became more introverted. This does not make the music less meaningful. The fact music took this direction I feel is a completely natural place for it to evolve immediately following the Romantic era.

There are plenty of virtues to be found in the emotional expressions of the Romantic era, but the early 20th century served as a wise reminder of the myth of Orpheus - not to be ruled by our passions. One can find plenty of virtue and significance in both perspectives. One leans towards a cathartic honesty of sorts, the other a reminder of the virtues of self-control and discipline - seeking a wider perspective than one that is ruled by our personal emotions.

You've certainly read a lot into my witty, knowing, drily articulated bon mot of dismissal, with which mere significance was not to interfere. What did it mean? I don't know - but wasn't it effective?

:tiphat:

(I was, by the way, characterizing Stravinsky's verbal manner, not his music. But I find it reasonable to draw some stylistic parallels.)

 

(I was, by the way, characterizing Stravinsky's verbal manner, not his music. But I find it reasonable to draw some stylistic parallels.)

Indeed. Stravinsky's music is often very French, and Karlheinz Klopweisser (as channeled by Glen Gould) speaks of "German silence, which is of course organic, as opposed to French silence, which is ornamental..."

 

Messiaen's approach is so non-Western, so this does not surprise me.

 

Apparently he didn't think much of Scriabin either, although I understand he was influenced by his music (Scriabin-esque harmonies in Petrushka?) - some of his letter to Scriabin seemed complimentary as well.

There was also something about jealousy of Britten or some such thing. Anyway, I guess no composer was exempt from these Tchaikovskian lashing outs, no matter how progressive or talented.

 

Of course I have no idea if it's reputable, but there's a quote circling the internet that Stravinsky said of Messiaen:

"All you need to write like him is a large bottle of ink."

Did he like modernists at all? I just find it a bit odd since Messiaen was of course influenced by Stravinsky's works, not to mention analysed and taught them to his students.

Of course, all sorts of composers disliked each other but usually they say things like "boring" instead of dismissing each other outright.

Composers like listeners have every right to dislike another composer's music. In this case, I think it was because Messiaen's music was rather too blended between religious beliefs and modernism.

 

interesting, as tons of stravinsky's later music in his serial period combines both of those elements. take for example his requiem canticles or his cantata.

 

Of course I have no idea if it's reputable, but there's a quote circling the internet that Stravinsky said of Messiaen:

"All you need to write like him is a large bottle of ink."

Did he like modernists at all? I just find it a bit odd since Messiaen was of course influenced by Stravinsky's works, not to mention analysed and taught them to his students.

Of course, all sorts of composers disliked each other but usually they say things like "boring" instead of dismissing each other outright.

Composers like Stravinsky, namely the big guns of music with massive egos to match, would often say things indicating some sort of agenda. Trouble is, they inevitably end up contradicting themselves, especially if like him they live to a grand old age. Its natural and probably good for a person's opinions to change over time. A lot of it would be said thinking aloud (not always smart when everything is on record) and also as a kind of joke.

Whatever I think of Stravinsky as a composer, as a person I see him as more an opportunist than anything. For example, Mahlerian mentions Igor despising Britten, but that didn't stop him from stealing a tone row from one of Britten's works. I can't remember the works in question, but I read this in a biography of Britten.

The best thing I read about him is that Stravinsky avoided criticising Rachmaninov. There is the infamous six and a half foot scowl quip, but I read that when the two men met in the USA during WWII, it was an amicable meeting. However, they didn't discuss music, the main topic being them having children in occupied Europe. Its likely that Stravinsky thought that Rachmaninov had received enough criticism - such as from Adorno, who said his music was for imbeciles - and just gave him a break. Rachmaninov also influenced Stravinsky to a degree, early on.

I wouldn't single out Stravinsky as the worst offender in this regard either. There is of course Boulez, and others like Varese. I used to be a fan of Varese's various put downs of those who didn't like contemporary music (even had a quote by him in my signature when I joined TC), but now I think it just speaks of arrogance and snobbery. A kind of reverse Modernist philistinism. I also have little time for quite a few of John Cage's various musings. I don't think its useful to do this with listeners, or other composers, for that matter. But I suppose this all just indicates that these guys where human. They liked to gossip, like most of the rest of humanity.

 

Thanks. Good answer!

Yeah Stravinsky had the gall to harshly criticize some of the people he himself was influenced by. LOL I supposed it's not really useful to read too closely into any of these quips. Boulez and the rest were heavy into ideology and Stravinsky once said that taste is a matter of morality or something like that - I suppose we're all humans and enjoy some good verbal sparring :tiphat:

 

Messiaen's music had no development in the Western sense, or harmonic function in the Western sense; that's one reason he influenced the post-war generation at Darmstadt, who were in search of something totally new. Stravinsky was still a traditional Western composer.

Some might have a hard time believing this about Messiaen, becuase his music "sounds good" as far as that goes. His music was still somewhat tone-centric, and most of all, like Debussy, it was still harmonic and had lots of harmonic color (just not function). He used harmonic artifacts of tonality, like triads, chords with 'roots,' etc.

But, other than that, his approach was radically non-Western.

 

Hell must've frozen over - I finally understood one of your posts, million.

 

According to Khachaturian the 1962(?) meeting between the two men was predictably somewhat tense at first - both seemed either unwilling to, or incapable of, getting the conversational ball rolling. The ice was apparently only eventually broken when DS cautiously asked IS what he thought of Puccini and IS replied that he couldn't stand him. DS: 'Oh, neither can I, neither can I...'. Common ground eventually attained at the expense of someone else! :lol:

 

From what I've read, Shostakovich regarded Stravinsky as a truly great composer (the feeling was not reciprocated) but complained that Igor couldn't write a decent transition but simply stopped one idea and began another.

Shostakovich presented Stravinsky with a copy of his piano version of the Symphony of Psalms when the latter visited the USSR in 1962. But Stravinsky is said to have treated him with "cruelty." I've never seen any details of this, but it may be due to Shostakovich's endorsement of the Party line against Stravinsky when he was in New York in 1949. As if he had any real choice!

 

Stravinsky the composer I curtsey to. Stravinsky the man I 'cut direct.'

He was such the faux aristocrat. It was beneath him to teach music to earn a living but of course not above him to wear a monocle and to live off of Coco Chanel's largesse- bless her heart.

He snubbed Shosty?

Imagine how I'd treat him at the cotillion.

 

Shostakovich recalls (in Testimony) Stravinsky's return to visit the USSR in 1962 at 80 years old: "Stravinsky hadn't forgotten anything -- that he had been called a lackey of American imperialism and a flunky of the Catholic Church -- and the very same people who had called him that were now greeting him with outspread arms. Stravinsky offered his walking stick instead of his hand to one of those hypocrites, who was forced to shake it, proving that he was the real lackey."

 

In one book I have it states that this particular 'hypocrite' was Tikhon Khrennikov, although this must have been related to DSCH as he was in Leningrad at the time Stravinsky touched down at Sheremetevo.

As Stravinsky stood in the hatchway of the plane and inhaled his first Russian air for 50 years he bowed deeply to the people gathered at the bottom of the landing stairs. Stravinsky was allegedly very keen on meeting Shostakovich: Khachaturian related that Stravinsky half-jokingly accused the younger man of running away from him when he heard that DSCH had travelled from Leningrad to Moscow at the same time Stravinsky was making the journey in the opposite direction!

 

I think that Stravinsky was nuts.

 

^^That's interesting, Marschallin Blair, but as usual from certain participants in this debate, the silence is defeaning. Whatever he was as a human being, I can accept that to some degree. Let's face it, there where many composers who weren't Florence Nightingales. On my scale of composers who where kind of difficult to say the least, he's up there with Wagner, Debussy, Mahler, Boulez to name the ones that come readily to mind.

But even Britten was no saint, its often noted how difficult he was to work with. For example he only used each librettist once, even though many of his operas where successful and a sequel with the same collaborator would be a natural thing to expect.

To rubbish someone is perhaps fine, but to do that and then steal from them - or at least be in some way in debt to them - is just being an opportunist. As I said though, the composers who where like this tended to be also very insecure beneath all the extreme opportunism, mysogyny, racism, amorality or whatever.

Its no big deal to talk about this, but again I am speaking to a massive brick wall of formalism and other unbiased biases here. I'm being UnModernist by doing this, only those listeners who are caricatured as dinosaurs are supposed to. Its like I've crossed the floor of parliament and voted for the party in opposition.

 

^^That's interesting, Marschallin Blair, but as usual from certain participants in this debate, the silence is defeaning. Whatever he was as a human being, I can accept that to some degree. Let's face it, there where many composers who weren't Florence Nightingales. On my scale of composers who where kind of difficult to say the least, he's up there with Wagner, Debussy, Mahler, Boulez to name the ones that come readily to mind.

But even Britten was no saint, its often noted how difficult he was to work with. For example he only used each librettist once, even though many of his operas where successful and a sequel with the same collaborator would be a natural thing to expect.

To rubbish someone is perhaps fine, but to do that and then steal from them - or at least be in some way in debt to them - is just being an opportunist. As I said though, the composers who where like this tended to be also very insecure beneath all the extreme opportunism, mysogyny, racism, amorality or whatever.

Its no big deal to talk about this, but again I am speaking to a massive brick wall of formalism and other unbiased biases here. I'm being UnModernist by doing this, only those listeners who are caricatured as dinosaurs are supposed to. Its like I've crossed the floor of parliament and voted for the party in opposition.

Hi Sid. ;D

It amusing to me that these people who'd tar and feather others with the moribund-and-reactionary 'dinosaur' brush are the very same people who call themselves 'Modernists' (because they don't like to be called 'Atonalists'- because 'antonality' to them quite simply doesn't exist).

But I submit: How is listening to music from almost a century ago "Modernist"?

I believe a better sobriquet would be "Atonalists."

 

Couldn't agree more. That one quote from his (cough) 'autobiography' (Music can express nothing) was classic Stravinsky. He was like Andy Warhol. He lied whenever it made good press to do so. I think it was all a joke to him.

 

Imagine if people would sift through the comments you made on this forum. That might give an impression of what we are doing here

 

Interesting here, a number of factual errors. Stravinsky did dismiss Schoenberg, very much because of his disregard of tonality. Stravinsky referred to Schoenberg as an 'inventor' rather than a composer. Stravinsky then adopted atonality after Schoenberg's death, mainly because he wanted respect from younger composers (Boulez and his group thought his neo-classicism was going nowhere).

Also, Stravinsky's homophobia, which is true, was for covering up his own bisexuality. He slept on a fairly regular basis with Ravel, and others. There is a report of Stravinsky and Bernstein...

I personally love a select few of his works. The rest, in my opinion, are not up to standards. I recognise Turangalila and the same level of musical integrity as the Rite of Spring. I like his dissonant neo-classicism but cannot stand Apollon, Pulcinella etc. His atonality just doesn't do it for me.

 

Interesting here, a number of factual errors. Stravinsky did dismiss Schoenberg, very much because of his disregard of tonality. Stravinsky referred to Schoenberg as an 'inventor' rather than a composer. Stravinsky then adopted atonality after Schoenberg's death, mainly because he wanted respect from younger composers (Boulez and his group thought his neo-classicism was going nowhere).

Stravinsky was one of the many who were entranced by Pierrot lunaire in its very successful early run of performances. It is true that he spoke against Schoenberg and his school during his Neoclassical period, but in his later period, after he encounted Robert Craft, he recognized Schoenberg as a master and a great composer. When Stravinsky adopted serialism, he maintained that in a very real sense his music was still tonal because the harmonic direction came prior to the filling in of content.

Stravinsky's reasons for adopting serialism are probably more related to a desire to keep fresh and reinvent himself, as he had done in the past, than to please Boulez and the Darmstadt composers, who pretty much continued to disdain Stravinsky's new music just as they had his Neoclassical work. Even after he broke with Boulez following the disastrous premiere of Threni, he continued to write in a 12-tone serial style.

Also, Stravinsky's homophobia, which is true, was for covering up his own bisexuality. He slept on a fairly regular basis with Ravel, and others. There is a report of Stravinsky and Bernstein...

I thought this was a rumor. Either way, it's not really important to the question of his music.