Stravinsky vs Schönberg

As much as I love Stravinsky, Schoenberg's oeuvre is the more essential — Stravinsky wrote a lot of stuff in the inter-war years to pay the bills.

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

stravinsky invented metal. therefore stravinsky wins.

― m the g, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

surely Wagner invented metal?

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

it may be argued that wagner invented iron maiden. but stravinsky invented black sabbath and meshuggah.

I like schoenberg too, but rite of spring is such a towering achievement that it's no contest, really.

― m the g, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

ooooohhh good one

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

(the thread idea, I mean)

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

Schönberg got less Romanticism into his Modernism so I'm voting for him.

― The north-east's Number 2 children's party magician (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

Or to think about it another way, good as Stravinsky is I would probably choose Mahler over him whereas I would find that a much more difficult choice vs Schoenberg

― The north-east's Number 2 children's party magician (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

I think Schoenberg is more "important" (despite Stravinsky having much greater immediate-term impact & massively influential don't get me wrong, Schoenberg is forever associated with 12-tone, and 12-tone I think is really the big door through which latter 20th-c music walks; when Stravinsky gets to 12-tone, it's because he's been studying Schoenberg) but I listen to Stravinsky a lot more & am more moved by his music

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 18:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

Theodor Adorno's Philosophy of Modern Music probably deserves to be mentioned on this thread. He comes out fairly strongly in favor of Schoenberg.

― Moodles, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:04 (2 years ago) Permalink

I like Pierrot Lunaire as much as any single thing Stravinsky ever did, but taking all in all this is Stravinsky by a mile. There are at least 15 Strav works I would be gutted never to hear again.

― Last edited by TheVeiledProphet on Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:39 pm (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

Schönberg got less Romanticism into his Modernism so I'm voting for him.

― The north-east's Number 2 children's party magician (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:50 (1 hour ago)

this is wrong, i think.

the serial method was supposed to assure the supremacy of german music, to find a form that could organize dissonance and thus be better capable of expressing individual suffering than the overwrought decadence of many of the composers succeeding wagner. it is more a rehabilitation than a fundamental rejection of romanticism.

the rite of spring is a more immediate rupture with subjective poetics and nationalist/pastoralist rhetoric, a score of anti-rationalist rituality and discontinuities. and then his neoclassical years were rife with pastiche, formal play, and foursquare neatness contra the excesses of late romanticism.

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

^^^OTM, Stravinsky was the anti-romantic of the first half of the 20c if anyone was.

― Last edited by TheVeiledProphet on Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:39 pm (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

(Sorry that display name was only amusing last Friday)

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

and Schoenberg's late pieces pieces seem to incorporate some romanticism after he'd mastered the new technique — and they're the better for it xxp

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

I see Schoenberg as a hyper-romantic all the way through his career, with his formal strategies a way for him to try to keep the monster on some kind of leash.

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

really? even stuff like the Serenade and 3rd SQ?

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

No Stravinsky, no J.G. Thirlwell. Gotta vote Stravinsky.

― that's not funny. (unperson), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

xpost Hmmm. Well, okay there are exceptions. Actually I kind of feel like the neo-classicism of the first several things he wrote after codifying twelve tone are kind of (meta-musically) expressions of joy at having won his inner structural battle. Like, they are twelve-tone celebrating the arrival of twelve tone!

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

:)

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 19:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

Actually I kind of feel like the neo-classicism of the first several things he wrote after codifying twelve tone are kind of (meta-musically) expressions of joy at having won his inner structural battle.

I don't get an intellectual vibe from Schoenberg's early 12 tone pieces at all either, I get the same searing hanging-off-a-cliff-edge-by-your-fingernails romanticism that he was overtly pursuing in his early pieces, it's all completely feverish & heart-rending when it's done right. Most of the time the reason why the music would come off as intellectual is because of the difficulty in playing the music -- if the performer is restrained or too precise or formal in his execution, you're not going to get that feeling like someone who has jumped off a cliff and is spending the whole trip down having changed their mind

― Milton Parker, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

stravinsky's sense of harmony = my fave part about him, and at least in the early ballets + les noces, not something I've ever had to think about. It just *sounds good*, like he was writing something he knew would program my brain before I was ever born. Early Schoenberg very much in this vein, and I guess I can hear the structure of his later pieces as continuing the same kinds of emotive shapes-- but I can't honestly claim to get anywhere near as much out of them as I do w/Strav.

― Dominique, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:14 (2 years ago) Permalink

once you tipped me to Les Noces I definitely felt like I had a deeper understanding of all the time I've spent listening to Magma

looking forward to the two-piano & chorus reduction of Noces you're doing in a month or two with the gang in Berkeley, Dominique

― Milton Parker, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

dear god it's not that soon is it??

― Dominique, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

how difficult could that piece possibly be

― Milton Parker, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

LOL

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

(also, wish I could come!)

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

just two pianos? is that recessionary pressure

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah, and the space only has two. I've recorded the first movement in two-piano reduction, and I think it can work! now, if anyone knows any ridiculous amazing singers who can count...

― Dominique, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

sounds awes regardless

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

where is this? Maybeck? Mills? Elsewhere?

― sarahel, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

maybeck, july 29-30

― Dominique, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 20:42 (2 years ago) Permalink

I wld be ready for this reduction, having just been to a performance of Ginastera's "Cantata Para America Magica" for soprano and percussion orchestra, which really does use too god damn much percussion to the point of diminishing returns.

Do u guys know this piece?

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

No, that seems to be like all the Ginastera I've heard — parts cribbed from Ravel and Stravinsky, all flash, little substance.

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

I just... there might be some kind of event horizon for massed percussion beyond, say, a dozen players?

Oh wait 77 Boadrum was my favorite musical event of the decade, maybe I should stfu.

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

xp Wish I could be there, Noces is amazing.

This is an impossible debate. These two composers have divergent approaches, to my mind, too divergent to compare them. Schoenberg is like Palestrina-- or Bach, or Ligeti, or Hindemith (in Hindemith's dreams! lol)-- in that he successfully applied a theoretical concept to the harmonic language. In contrast, Stravinsky, in Schoenberg's own words, "was a composer who writes at the piano". Stravinsky's own explorations in pan-tonality, not to mention his genius orchestration, resulted in some of the greatest works of the first half of the 20th c. But he was still an intuitive composer; Schoenberg was a conceptual one, and his impact was far greater in my estimation.

Far fairer fights here would be Stravinsky vs. Bartok; Schoenberg vs. Ligeti. Right now 'this does not compute'

― Odult Ariented Rock (Ówen P.), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 21:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

was a composer who writes at the piano

otm!! his harmony constructed just like two hands on the keyboard, and you can "see" it progress in a manner that would lend itself really well to solo piano

tho I say Ligeti had a fair amount of this happening as well, or at least struck a good balance of intuitive music vs conceptual structure

― Dominique, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:09 (2 years ago) Permalink

the serial method was supposed to assure the supremacy of german music, to find a form that could organize dissonance and thus be better capable of expressing individual suffering than the overwrought decadence of many of the composers succeeding wagner. it is more a rehabilitation than a fundamental rejection of romanticism.

the rite of spring is a more immediate rupture with subjective poetics

"Overwrought decadence" strikes me as being kind of extreme language, so I'm wondering which composers we're talking about.

Reminds me that Milton characterized Satie as "deprogramming for centuries of classical music sentimentality" the other day. Sorry to be argumentative, but I think that's also very extreme language.

Also don't think The Rite of Spring is any less "subjective" than late Romantic music.

― timellison, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

xp @ Dominique: The fact that his harmony is constructed just like two hands on the keyboard, in the case of his ballets and Les Noces, was because he was writing piano reductions in advance of the orchestration.

When Schoenberg made that "at the piano" comment, I think he was referring specifically to the fact that Stravinsky was primarily interested in intuitive composition. The sounding out of chords and contrasting colours. Something that Schoenberg maybe felt was somewhat decadent? Passe? At any rate, it was Stravinsky's first and last lesson with the dude. (Source? I can't locate it...)

But instead, a great article by Robert Craft about Stravinsky's adoption of serialism, and later, 12-tone: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/82dec/craft82.htm

― Odult Ariented Rock (Ówen P.), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

Also don't think The Rite of Spring is any less "subjective" than late Romantic music.

― timellison, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:20

how is one piece of music more subjective than another? if it helps, read as /intrasubjective poetics/

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'm happy to call a bunch of my favorite composers of that era 'overwrought decadence'!

Bax, Szymanowski, Suk, early Schoenberg...

Also re: 'subjective' it depends on which scalpel you use to seperate Romantic from Anti-Romantic. In most of the above usage Romantic would prob be meant to denote highly chromatic tonal music with an emphasis on grand passion and grandeur in general.

If you take the idea of Romanticism at a more abstract level then there are a hell of a lot of 20c avant gardists who still have to be called Romantics in the sense of "here's the great adventurer deep inside unexplored territory, bringing back visions to polite society'

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

transfigured night is certainly my favourite schoenberg and one of the most affecting pieces in all of music. it's perfectly excessive.

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

the s/s binary still works, if not entirely on adorno's terms or in his favour. they still seem like foundational figures for tracing the years since, whereas bartok while comparably great still seems very much individuated and without a distinct and arguable lineage overshadowing his successors, for all that he may have influenced them.

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

And wonderfully well-argued, as rhapsodic as it seems to be and as is unusual for pieces with a similarly fin-de-siècle apocalyptic aesthetic — the harmonic language might be post-Wagner, but the construction is definitely post-Brahms.

xp

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

ya, admittedly i don't know brahms very well but i can see parallels with his symphonies. schoenberg saw him as the last great master of the tradition, i think.

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

that is to say, previous great.

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

actually that's probably the reason I rate Schoenberg over Stravinsky — every detail seems essential to the whole, contra Stravinsky's Debussyian use of impressionistic "sound-images" that are more or less non-reflective (which are still interesting). Also upthread otm about Stravinsky's harmonies — those spacious quartal chords hit something deep in me

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

like this is irresistibly gorgeous:

― corey, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

youtube fight yall

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 15 March 2011 22:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

Plus that Mars quote in the British Nuggets box set-- I think it's "Listen To The Sky"?

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

Plus Led Zep's "Friends"

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Friday, 18 March 2011 05:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

Plus:

― Myonga Vön Bontee, Friday, 18 March 2011 05:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

Frogman Henry here. Old account unworkable on this pc.

In this contest it's undeniably Schoenberg, actually it would be Schoenberg up against most 20c composers for me, only Webern, Mahler and Bartok would seriously challenge him for me, but I'm happy to concede that says something about my listening experience, there are many composers of whom I have only a cursory hearing.

I'm going to make some enemies here maybe, but I find Stravinsky soulless in most of his catalogue.
I like the symphonies (in C, 3 moves, Psalms etc) precisely because some anger and some personality seems to come out in them, but an awful lot of Strav in the middle/later ballets and the widdly neo-classical pieces seems to me to be note-spinning with little feeling or commitment( I listened to Dumbarton Oaks the other day; wow was that ever inconsequential). This is very pleasant somtimes, I love chilling out to the colours and pungent sensuality of Apollo or Pulcinella, but they move me not a jot, and they leave me feeling like you do when you listen to music by minor composers of Haydn's time. Stravinsky is often ravishing to the ear, but strangely empty.

With Schoenberg, as you can guess, it's jsut the opposite. Completely agree with this "I get the same searing hanging-off-a-cliff-edge-by-your-fingernails romanticism that he was overtly pursuing in his early pieces, it's all completely feverish & heart-rending when it's done right" to the extent that it's probably redundant for me to add to it cos I can't expresss it better, but I will do anyway - I feel I am involved with AS, with him on his journey, and subject to the the same perils. Of course there are times where you can feel lost, where you don't know if you trust the old Trickster/Nemesis, like around the middle of the Variations for Orchestra op.31, which I struggled with, and where you really do feel the 12-tone bogeyman of classical music start to confuddle and maybe repulse you. But repeated listenings allowed me to unravel the musical logic as well as be enraptured by the sound, and now I do see how it's one of his masterpieces, and one that I can feel (relatively) comfortable with. I got into AS via Webern, so the comparative heaviness, struggle and as it seemed imperiousness were hard to reconcile with what I conceived about 12-tone at first from AS's pupil, but I like all these things now, and AS seems - once again to use this divise term - more human, more afraid, more subjective, maybe more interesting.
I've immersed myself in the string quartets and the orchestral pieces - Erwartung (I noticed no one mentioned that, don't know why) the Chamber Symphonies, the Five Pieces and the Variations.
Verklate Nacht is also great of course.

― glumdalclitch, Friday, 18 March 2011 13:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's weird how there's so much baggage around these two as well, I guess that's why nakh slected them, they're both constantly mentioned in context of 'greatest' or 'most conterversial' 20c composer.
They both make people very scared and wary. All this stuff is quite a barrier to appreciating their music, particularly so with AS. The bollocks surrounding his life and legend is almost imprenetrable sometimes.

― glumdalclitch, Friday, 18 March 2011 13:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

He's kind of the villain of "The Rest Is Noise"

― Tom D (Tom D.), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

alex ross is a retard

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

his heart's in the right place but he likes a lot of crap

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:27 (2 years ago) Permalink

and he's not really a retard

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

Yes, that was a bit harsh, the crap bit was OTM

― Tom D (Tom D.), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's weird how there's so much baggage around these two as well, I guess that's why nakh slected them, they're both constantly mentioned in context of 'greatest' or 'most conterversial' 20c composer.

― glumdalclitch, Friday, 18 March 2011 13:22 (5 minutes ago)

totally

i don't think adorno was the first to counterpose the two but he virtually enshrined it as an either/or binary

the answer to which is 'both'

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

ya i used to read ross' blog and his enthusiasm and scholarship are exemplary, which is why he really ought to be careful legitimizing the 'schoenberg fucked it up for the rest of us' narrative to the new yorker crowd

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

he likes too much new orchestral fluff for me to take his taste seriously — like recent music textbooks that feel compelled to include John Corigliano in "recent developments"

― corey, Friday, 18 March 2011 13:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

'schoenberg fucked it up for the rest of us'

Wait, I just read The Rest Is Noise recently and I didn't get this out of it at all. (I think I would have noticed since I'm a huge Schoenberg fan.) He does seem to have perverse taste when it comes to Schoenberg though. I've never read anyone else who focuses so much on Schoenberg's operas (!) when it comes to 12-note music, at the expense of the piano music or last two string quartets. Or are you talking about the blog rather than the book?

I loved the book by the way. It was wonderfully written and the historical detail was incredible. His taste in 20th century music mostly just seems like the mainstream American Norton Anthology-style canon to me, which is fine. He at least covers a broader range of music than Griffiths does and seems to try to engage with it on its own terms. His adoration for Sibelius was the one really surprising thing for me. The focus on Strauss is also a little striking but I actually agree with him there!

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Friday, 18 March 2011 13:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

Why was it surprising that he rates Sibelius so highly? It took a long time for CM criterati to check whether there was anything beyond Finlandia and Symphony #2, but at least for a couple of decades now I think you'll find plenty who'll inveigh that Sibelius' symphonies and most of his sym poems are every bit as formally interesting as Schoenberg-- his achievement was simply "masked" by the fact that he worked entirely in the tonal system and without the use of any signature 20c sound sources (one symphony has bass clarinet and harp, that's about as wild as the personnel gets. But he achieves incredible klangfarbenmelodie anyway).

(Cards on table, Sibelius is my favorite of all).

Anyhow. Ross' best chapters were the ones on Feldman, SIbelius, Strauss, and Berg, all amazing pieces of writing. He's full of shit re: schoenberg though.

'schoenberg fucked it up for the rest of us'

Yeah, not at all. ADORNO fucked it up for the rest of us. H8 that fucking guy, seriously.

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Friday, 18 March 2011 20:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

he likes too much new orchestral fluff for me to take his taste seriously — like recent music textbooks that feel compelled to include John Corigliano in "recent developments"

So what's Simon Reynold's favourite rock band these days? (that comparison probably doesn't work but I'm not even gonna spend too much time on it) Really can't trust him.

Schönberg, no hesitation - had much more of a trip w/him than anything. Also it helps that he had Webern and Berg (a 2nd viennese poll would be much more difficult) and that he taught John Cage etc etc. Strav just doesn't offer enough to compensate for that.

And he seems more of a chameleon to me. Gets bored, try another thing and move on, is my impression - an interesting quality for a composer to have (suited more to pop than anything.) I like the Rite of Spring and some of the brutal sounding minimalism that it sorta gave birth to.

― xyzzzz__, Friday, 18 March 2011 20:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

Ross:CM /= Reynolds:Rock in any way shape or form, i mean let's not get hysterical here.

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Friday, 18 March 2011 21:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

Ross is an excellent, sometimes even brilliant, writer with some big blind spots and some odd POVs, is all.

Trying to think of who would be the Reynolds of CM writing. It's definitely a blogger, not someone in any of the magazines...

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Friday, 18 March 2011 21:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

Well for me I went on a similar curve with both writers. SR => liked his MM stuff (collected in his first bk) then the turn to dance and the like. The moment he said he didn't get the Dead C and write stupid stuff about Madonna (another Chameleon) was the moment I stopped.

w/Ross I read via a blog. Quite good at a time when I was figuring out.

Both were good for that 'figuring out' stretch. After a point its 'no more' thanks.

Whereas Adorno is a writer 4 life, etc. May fall out but will always go back to.

― xyzzzz__, Friday, 18 March 2011 21:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

Maybe I just haven't read that many contemporary critics. I'd never really read or studied a 20th-century music history that placed so much (or, frankly, much) importance on Sibelius. (I'm not a historian or musicologist, mind.)

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Saturday, 19 March 2011 02:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

Ross's writing really persuaded me to listen to more Sibelius btw.

LOVED the Britten chapter too. Also, the discussion of music in Nazi Germany and the CIA's consequent promotion of radical avant-gardism in Europe as a way to break away from the Germanic tradition that the Nazis had so prized.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Saturday, 19 March 2011 02:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

I recommend starting with symphonies 4,5,6 and the final symphonic poem Tapiola. The sym poem with soprano Luonnatar will also blow da mind.

― O, for tuna! (Jon Lewis), Saturday, 19 March 2011 03:10 (2 years ago) Permalink

THE BARD

THE OCEANIDES

― corey, Saturday, 19 March 2011 03:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

Also, the discussion of music in Nazi Germany and the CIA's consequent promotion of radical avant-gardism in Europe as a way to break away from the Germanic tradition that the Nazis had so prized.

See a lot of that is being debated right now as to how those first few Darmstadt music courses came about in the first place, in terms who paid and ran, and if any ideology was consciously promoted.

A few researchers are digging into the archive and a history of Darmstadt has got to be written.

From the scraps I've heard and gathered Darmstadt certainly didn't start as an oasis of the avant-garde. This box set has some of the works played in the early years.

― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 19 March 2011 09:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

Amy Beal's book on music in postwar Germany, New music, new allies, is an important part of that research, a key source for Ross, and a generally engaging read.

― O for Ona (Paul in Santa Cruz), Saturday, 19 March 2011 18:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

(As its subtitle makes clear, Beal's book focuses on the American role.)

― O for Ona (Paul in Santa Cruz), Saturday, 19 March 2011 19:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

Sounds like a must read.

― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 19 March 2011 19:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

― System, Tuesday, 22 March 2011 00:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

― System, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 00:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

closer than I thought it would be!

― corey, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 00:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

huh, i was pretty confident schoenberg would win. some rite of spring-lovin-ass classical listeners in here.

― j., Wednesday, 23 March 2011 02:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

that's why I thought it would be higher — lots of people essentially voting for rite

― corey, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 02:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

i voted for stravinsky bcuz i felt bad that he wasnt going to get any votes

― ♞/♘ (Lamp), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 02:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

i used to like 'rite' but it never seemed all that primally whatever

― j., Wednesday, 23 March 2011 02:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

once I read somewhere how much his harmonic language was influenced by Debussy that changed my hearing of it forever — now it seems lush rather than brutal/primitivistic.

― corey, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 02:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

huh, i was pretty confident schoenberg would win. some rite of spring-lovin-ass classical listeners in here.

So that's the only reason ppl would vote for stravinsky over schoenberg?

― return, descender (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 23 March 2011 17:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

obviously not, but it might explain the numbers.

― j., Thursday, 24 March 2011 00:14 (2 years ago) Permalink

the amirite of spring

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Thursday, 24 March 2011 00:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

a very, very condescending person would call it the fantasia factor. i am not that person.

― glumdalclitch, Thursday, 24 March 2011 01:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

should give ilxors more credit than that imo

― corey, Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

Yeah some of those votes MIGHT be cuz Strav has a list of masterpieces longer than my arm, who knows, stranger things have happened.

― the worst thing Narada Michael Walden has ever been associated with (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

so touchy about my glib messageboard yammering! i'm sure stravinsky is very masterful, my impression is just that schoenberg means more to Now.

― j., Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

i stand outside of history, listening to records on my iphone

― ♞/♘ (Lamp), Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

closer than I thought it would be!

― corey, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 00:37 (Yesterday)

same, thought those fairweather disneyites would give a large margin to igor

voted for him, will try to explain later

― kid 606: the nultness (nakhchivan), Thursday, 24 March 2011 11:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

the symphony of psalms third mvmt is an outlier and not representative of what i like about stravinsky, but i return to it more often than anything else

― Nigel Farage is a fucking hero (nakhchivan), Monday, 7 November 2011 02:41 (1 year ago) Permalink

agon

― A.R.R.Y. Kane (nakhchivan), Saturday, 18 August 2012 23:38 (10 months ago) Permalink

the whole tilson thomas 'stravinsky in america' lp, really

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/300x300/63126525.jpg

― Nilmar Honorato da Silva, Thursday, 23 August 2012 19:59 (9 months ago) Permalink

the chailly agon is maybe more real tho

― moët plaudit (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Friday, 25 January 2013 19:34 (4 months ago) Permalink

― moët plaudit (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Friday, 25 January 2013 19:34 (4 months ago) Permalink

This was such a great thread.

Also:

agon

― A.R.R.Y. Kane (nakhchivan), Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:38 PM (5 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTM

There is an awesome Erich Leinsdorf recording of Agon that rly needs reissuing.

― John Bradshaw-Leather (Jon Lewis), Friday, 25 January 2013 19:48 (4 months ago) Permalink