Classical Music : Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Discuss.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

I'd say Tchaikovsky is Russia's Mozart. Both composers were fluent in a wide variety of genres and possessed immense melodic gifts. Like Handel (and Mozart, too), Tchaikovsky was cosmopolitan in his outlook, had an affinity for writing operas, and all three had strong melodic gifts. So I see where you're coming from with Handel, although Tchaikovsky himself idolized Mozart and called him a "Musical Christ". I'd say Tchaikovsky's tendency to lightness and grace (when he wasn't being bombastic) tips him closer to Mozart than Handel. Another thing Mozart and Tchaikovsky have in common is the odd and sudden (and some say controversial) manner of their deaths, with conspiracy theories persisting for centuries. The Bach/Rimsky-Korsakov thing you'll have to explain to me. Scriabin is maybe Russia's Chopin (with a little Debussy thrown in) and Stravinsky is perhaps Russia's Schoenberg. Given Stravinsky's publicly stated antipathy for Beethoven, I fear Igor would shamble up from his grave and kill me if I called him Russia's Beethoven. Russia's Berlioz might be closer to the mark, or at least it would keep Zombie Igor off of me. I'm thinking of Stravinsky's pre-Neo Classical period, of course. After his wild man days in the 19-teens Igor seemed to be striving to be Russia's Bach much more so than Rimsky-Korsakov, who I think was more aping German/Austrian Classicism in general rather than any one composer in particular.

Who were Germany/Austria's Mussorgskys and Glinkas, I wonder?

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


I'd say Tchaikovsky is Russia's Mozart. Both composers were fluent in a wide variety of genres and possessed immense melodic gifts. Like Handel (and Mozart, too), Tchaikovsky was cosmopolitan in his outlook, had an affinity for writing operas, and all three had strong melodic gifts. So I see where you're coming from with Handel, although Tchaikovsky himself idolized Mozart and called him a "Musical Christ". I'd say Tchaikovsky's tendency to lightness and grace (when he wasn't being bombastic) tips him closer to Mozart than Handel.

These are all excellent points - though Handel can be very light and graceful, e.g. Acis and Galataea, but yes, it's not his default mode as it is Tchaikovsky's,

I think the Mozart comparison hits a snag, though, in that Mozart's music is extremely efficient, while Tchaikovsky's is more loosely organized. (We could maybe put it another way: Mozart is an expert seducer, like - well, you know - while Tchaikovsky is a charming gentleman who steals people's hearts without even deliberately trying.) I hit on the Handel comparison because I was looking for another composer who was like Tchaikovsky in that he (1) is a natural melodist and (2) has a perfectly solid technique, but doesn't seem to be very interested in technique for its own sake.


The Bach/Rimsky-Korsakov thing you'll have to explain to me. Scriabin is maybe Russia's Chopin (with a little Debussy thrown in) and Stravinsky is perhaps Russia's Schoenberg. Given Stravinsky's publicly stated antipathy for Beethoven, I fear Igor would shamble up from his grave and kill me if I called him Russia's Beethoven. Russia's Berlioz might be closer to the mark, or at least it would keep Zombie Igor off of me. I'm thinking of Stravinsky's pre-Neo Classical period, of course. After his wild man days in the 19-teens Igor seemed to be striving to be Russia's Bach much more so than Rimsky-Korsakov, who I think was more aping German/Austrian Classicism in general rather than any one composer in particular.

Rimsky-Korsakov is the Bach to Tchaikovsky's Handel because he was the more learned technician (by Tchaikovsky's own cheerful admission), and because the subsequent explosion of important Russian composers seems to me to owe more to his influence than to anybody else's (just as the explosion of major German composers in the late 18th century and subsequently seems to owe the most to Bach's influence, initially as transmitted by his sons CPE and JC to Haydn and Mozart respectively). Incidentally, I think the most influential western composer for Rimsky was always Liszt.

I'll mark myself for death by zombie Stravinsky and say that he IS Russia's Beethoven - great with motifs; good with melodies but they don't come naturally to him; a natural at sturm-und-drang stuff like The Rite of Spring, but really wanted to write sweetness-and-light classical music (like Beethoven in, for example, his 8th symphony).


Who were Germany/Austria's Mussorgskys and Glinkas, I wonder?

Gluck and Schütz respectively, maybe?


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


I'll mark myself for death by zombie Stravinsky and say that he IS Russia's Beethoven - great with motifs; good with melodies but they don't come naturally to him; a natural at sturm-und-drang stuff like The Rite of Spring, but really wanted to write sweetness-and-light classical music (like Beethoven in, for example, his 8th symphony).


That’s a great description of both Beethoven and Stravinsky. Interestingly, Beethoven’s eighth is my favorite among his symphonies, perhaps the best of his pieces written in a lighter mode. Comparatively, which pieces do you believe to be the best of Stravinsky’s light side?

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

With all due respect, to compare Tchaikovsky's mood swings and loose structures to Handel's power or to Mozart's extremely cleverly knit forms, and to reduce him (and Mozart) to 'lightness', or to compare Rimski-Korsakov's ease with orchestration to Bach's hyper-intelligence in counterpoint and supreme lyricism is... how should I put it?

Is this bothering you?

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Got to say I rather agree with this. I think these comparisons are more troubling than enlightening.

warriorspirit: if the penis is used as a pencil holder we'll incur a cost.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


I think these comparisons are more troubling than enlightening.

That sounds interesting. Troubling how?



-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

I wouldn't take this thread too seriously. It kind of reminds me of the Rock-n-Roll/Classical Composer Comparison thread we had a few years back. It's all in good fun and is mainly designed to point out a few points of similarity between composers/genres while at the same time illustrating the major differences.

I'm sure even Tchaikovsky never thought he was comparable to Mozart, though he clearly idolized him and did try to sound like him at times. There must have been something in Mozart that Tchaikovsky identified with in himself. On the other hand, I don't think it ever even occurred to Tchaikovsky that he was in any way comparable to Handel or Bach. In terms of orchestration, Rimsky-Korsakov is more analogous with Berlioz than anybody else. Since Rimsky was Stravinsky's teacher, that's why I suggested early Stravinsky was a "Russia Berlioz", though perhaps that comparison was more suitable for the teacher than the pupil. Again, this glosses over the huge differences between Rimsky-Korsakov and Berlioz.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


On the other hand, I don't think it ever even occurred to Tchaikovsky that he was in any way comparable to Handel or Bach.

Well he said Bach was ooooookay, but not a great genius, and Handel was worthless.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


With all due respect, to compare Tchaikovsky's mood swings and loose structures to Handel's power or to Mozart's extremely cleverly knit forms, and to reduce him (and Mozart) to 'lightness'

I don't think it necessarily reduces Tchaikovsky or Mozart to call them 'light' - not in the sense of insubstantiality, obviously, but in the sense of fleetness.


or to compare Rimski-Korsakov's ease with orchestration to Bach's hyper-intelligence in counterpoint and supreme lyricism is... how should I put it?

Well there's a lot more to Rimsky than orchestration. Sure, he's not as great as Bach, but then, Russian music isn't as great as German music.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

That’s actually a very interesting analogy! Thank you for sharing it. By comparing Tchaikovsky to Handel, I imagined you were probably referring to their common melodic talents, but, like christomacin, I admit Rimsky-Korsakov’s comparison to Bach left me clueless at first. After reading your reply to him, however, I see where you were getting at. Although I had not really thought about it before, I believe you are probably right about RK’s influence being more important than Tchaikovsky’s in the establishment of Russian modernism. Intriguingly so, since I believe Tchaikovsky’s best pieces are more satisfactory than RK’s best, despite their loose structures and nonconformity to the techniques of harmonic development associated with sonata forms. Perhaps his formalism and interest for exotic influences fitted better with the fin de siècle aesthetic environment which would pave the way for the advent of modernism. Or, perhaps, given his correlation with Bach, formalism just tends to be more propitious for innovation. Conversely, as it concerns Bach’s familial context, I believe the strong musical environment present in his family and in its social circles – highly strengthened by Bach’s own engagement to musical education, which surely had a great impact on his sons – was also probably a strong factor in securing the upbringing of the following generations of great composers to be educated among the German people.

Even if he was not the progenitor of the Classical era, however, if something can be said in defense of the enormity of Handel’s historical importance, his influence was to experience a great comeback in its impact on Haydn and, even more so, Mozart, whose vocal music is clearly indebted to him. I can’t think of similar examples right now concerning Tchaikovsky’s influence, however. Maybe that’s due to the fact that his contributions were mainly in melody, not one of the strongest areas of 20th century classical music. Anyhow, perhaps the mere feat of being able to entertain most of the modern public for extended periods of time while, simultaneously, catching the attention and appreciation of many practitioners, critics and more interested and well-informed classical listeners (although perhaps not most, as Tchaikovsky tends to be underrated in many circles) could already be evoked in his favor. Indeed, a wonderful starting point for reflection and discussion.

Nevertheless, as it pertains to the original comparison, while I certainly think higher of Tchaikovsky than of RK, and although I personally prefer Handel to Bach, in a more objective assessment, I believe Bach was actually better than Handel, and perhaps better than anyone else, except (perhaps) for Mozart and Beethoven. That does not change the fact, however, that, stylistically and historically, the association, I think, stands very well, and has much of interest to it.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

What a fantastic post! I am deeply ashamed by comparison.


Intriguingly so, since I believe Tchaikovsky’s best pieces are more satisfactory than RK’s best, despite their loose structures and nonconformity to the techniques of harmonic development associated with sonata forms.

This is an excellent point. Yes, there's probably a reason why Eugene Onegin and even The Queen of Spades have gradually established a place in the repertory, while The Invisible City of Kitezh, amazing as it is, remains an obscurity. So I guess at the level of large-scale organization, Tchaikovsky was actually, somehow, the superior technician after all.


Even if he was not the progenitor of the Classical era, however, if something can be said in defense of the enormity of Handel’s historical importance, his influence was to experience a great comeback in its impact on Haydn and, even more so, Mozart, whose vocal music is clearly indebted to him. I can’t think of similar examples right now concerning Tchaikovsky’s influence, however. Maybe that’s due to the fact that his contributions were mainly in melody, not one of the strongest areas of 20th century classical music.

Since Tchaikovsky's genius is arguably above all for melody, it should maybe be in the history of melody that we look for his influence on subsequent generations - and I think we find it, though maybe not in what we currently call "classical music." For example, it's fairly common for people to remark that the big lyrical melody toward the end of Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" sounds like Tchaikovsky. Another example that comes to mind is the big lyrical melody toward the end of Rachmaninov's rhapsody on a theme by Paganini.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Thank you, you are too kind. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the time to get online in the past few days, which forced me to postpone my reply.



Yes, there's probably a reason why Eugene Onegin and even The Queen of Spades have gradually established a place in the repertory, while The Invisible City of Kitezh, amazing as it is, remains an obscurity. So I guess at the level of large-scale organization, Tchaikovsky was actually, somehow, the superior technician after all.



That’s an interesting argument. Although perhaps melodically inferior to his best symphonies, Eugene Onegin is one of my favorite works by him. I believe Tchaikovsky’s talents were very well suited for the stage, and his approach captured beautifully the romantic and dramatic façades of Pushkin’s original. I find him less successful, however, in expressing the lightness, the humor and wit of the novel. In the poem, drama is always balanced with comic self-control, much like in most of Mozart. Onegin’s final rejection by Tatyana, for instance, is treated by Pushkin in a quite trivial and one-sided light, and his reaction is not given much attention before the narrator returns to warmly close the chapter. Tchaikovsky was certainly less successful than Mozart in exploring the comic potential of music, but I believe some of the lightness and graceful variety present in The Nutcracker, with perhaps some changes to the libretto, would have greatly improved the score. Nevertheless, it’s still, I think, a beautiful and pleasant opera, one I find much more consistent than even the best of Puccini’s efforts, Tatyana’s early innocence being effectively portrayed by the composer’s melodies, enhancing the dramatic irony of the conclusion.

It’s interesting that you mention The invisible city of Kitezh, however, since, better or worse than Onegin, that is probably my favorite piece from Rimsky-Korsakov, one I feel is unfairly overlooked outside of Russia. I wonder why. I could perfectly live with it being more performed than less interesting pieces by Shostakovich or Prokofiev!



Since Tchaikovsky's genius is arguably above all for melody, it should maybe be in the history of melody that we look for his influence on subsequent generations - and I think we find it, though maybe not in what we currently call "classical music." For example, it's fairly common for people to remark that the big lyrical melody toward the end of Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" sounds like Tchaikovsky. Another example that comes to mind is the big lyrical melody toward the end of Rachmaninov's rhapsody on a theme by Paganini.


I believe you are right, and I enjoyed your examples, especially Gershwin’s. Thank you. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on him? I know many dislike him due to his roots in jazz, while others think less of his music because of that. Personally, I don’t know how to best classify him, but, classical or not, at least from the first half of the twentieth century, I struggle to think of any American composer I find more gratifying. He was also a pretty good melodist. Except for Fauré, Ravel and Debussy, he was probably my favorite melodist from the period.

Actually, in retrospect, I believe I was probably unfair to Tchaikovsky’s influence. Besides Rachmaninov, Glazunov, Elgar and Sibelius, especially in his earlier works, also show significant characteristics of his music. Even Mahler, as Stravinsky points out, integrates elements from his music in many of his symphonies. Even though I don’t think any of them were as good as Stravinsky, they still had some relevance, to varying degrees. And, finally, there are also movie composers, most of which are influenced by him, and which, although generally not very good, are still prominent in our popular culture. In popular music proper, can you think of other interesting examples in which his influence is apparent?

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


I believe Tchaikovsky’s talents were very well suited for the stage, and his approach captured beautifully the romantic and dramatic façades of Pushkin’s original. I find him less successful, however, in expressing the lightness, the humor and wit of the novel. In the poem, drama is always balanced with comic self-control, much like in most of Mozart. Onegin’s final rejection by Tatyana, for instance, is treated by Pushkin in a quite trivial and one-sided light, and his reaction is not given much attention before the narrator returns to warmly close the chapter. Tchaikovsky was certainly less successful than Mozart in exploring the comic potential of music, but I believe some of the lightness and graceful variety present in The Nutcracker, with perhaps some changes to the libretto, would have greatly improved the score.

I suppose you're right, though I do like Tchaikovsky's opera the way it is. It's not as multifaceted as Pushkin's poem - more precisely I should say Pushkin's poem in English translation, which is all I know - but there's no shame in being somewhat less than Pushkin. Your mentioning of the Nutcracker is interesting - I suppose it does stand out for particular lightness and grace among Tchaikovsky's works. Another reason to regret his early(ish) death, maybe, if he was just beginning a new development in his style in that respect.


It’s interesting that you mention The invisible city of Kitezh, however, since, better or worse than Onegin, that is probably my favorite piece from Rimsky-Korsakov, one I feel is unfairly overlooked outside of Russia. I wonder why. I could perfectly live with it being more performed than less interesting pieces by Shostakovich or Prokofiev!

Oh dear God yes!


Incidentally, what are your thoughts on him? I know many dislike him due to his roots in jazz, while others think less of his music because of that. Personally, I don’t know how to best classify him, but, classical or not, at least from the first half of the twentieth century, I struggle to think of any American composer I find more gratifying. He was also a pretty good melodist. Except for Fauré, Ravel and Debussy, he was probably my favorite melodist from the period.

I personally love Gershwin as I do very few composers of any kind. Something Robin Holloway wrote sticks with me: "the emotional charge of one of his great love songs is primal, going to the basis of pleasure more freely and directly than anything else in the whole range of music." (The whole chapter is worth reading: https://books.google.com/books?id=b0KonLPQndcC&pg=PA360)

I mostly don't think of Debussy as a melodist, exactly - a "colorist," maybe? - but certainly if you're going to write the history of melody in the early 20th century, then Fauré, Ravel, and Gershwin are three of the very greatest - maybe THE three greatest? - representatives.

My first impulse with the jazz-classical debate is to say: Who cares? In another few hundred years it'll all just be known as "early music" anyway. But the very fact that the debate exists proves that Gershwin was uniquely successful in bridging the two worlds (much more so than even Duke Ellington), so I guess in that respect it's worth keeping the debate alive, in order to recognize the magnitude of Gershwin's achievement.


Besides Rachmaninov, Glazunov, Elgar and Sibelius, especially in his earlier works, also show significant characteristics of his music. Even Mahler, as Stravinsky points out, integrates elements from his music in many of his symphonies

Of course, Sibelius! I always forget about him. And I didn't know Stravinsky said that! Did he point out particular passages in Mahler?


In popular music proper, can you think of other interesting examples in which his influence is apparent?

Sometimes it's hard to say. For example, Richard Rodgers' waltzes (the opening of Carousel, "Oh What a Beautiful Morning," "My Favorite Things," "Falling in Love with Love," and so on) sound to me more like Tchaikovsky's than they do like Johann Strauss, Jr.'s or Ravel's. But is that a result of influence, direct or indirect, or just a coincidence? I'm not sure.

I think we can at least say that, assuming Tchaikovsky is an essential influence on Gershwin, or at least on the lyrical side of Gershwin, then it follows that he's an influence at one remove on everybody who was subsequently influenced by that side of Gershwin. This would include later generations of popular songwriters - I'm not yet confident enough in my history there to say who and when, but I assume everybody can agree that Gershwin was an important direct influence on SOME important later popular songwriters and then an indirect influence on others - and also maybe Leonard Bernstein, e.g. in the heavenly pas de deux from On the Town - which doesn't necessarily sound anything like Tchaikovsky, but I think you can trace a lineage back to the slow movement of Gershwin's piano concerto, and from there to the slow part of "The Rhapsody in Blue," and from THERE, maybe, to the old Russian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdGM24kP8mc&t=3m46s

By the way, I pretty much know what I'm going to say in reply to your other post, on Stravinsky's lighter side, but I want to put a bit of effort into it, and I really shouldn't be putting an effort into anything except work for the next couple of days, so I probably won't get around to posting until the weekend.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


By the way, I pretty much know what I'm going to say in reply to your other post, on Stravinsky's lighter side, but I want to put a bit of effort into it, and I really shouldn't be putting an effort into anything except work for the next couple of days, so I probably won't get around to posting until the weekend.


No worry! And, in the end, due to a family emergency (my dog was poisoned last Saturday), I was not comfortable in turning my attention to other things until she was confirmed as stable by the veterinary hospital last night. I look forward to reading your thoughts regarding my question when you have the time to respond.


I suppose you're right, though I do like Tchaikovsky's opera the way it is. It's not as multifaceted as Pushkin's poem - more precisely I should say Pushkin's poem in English translation, which is all I know - but there's no shame in being somewhat less than Pushkin. Your mentioning of the Nutcracker is interesting - I suppose it does stand out for particular lightness and grace among Tchaikovsky's works. Another reason to regret his early(ish) death, maybe, if he was just beginning a new development in his style in that respect.


I like it as well, and I completely agree there is no shame in accomplishing less than Pushkin. In fact, I believe I may have overemphasized the opera’s inferiority to the original poem, probably because I have been thinking too much about the poet lately. Actually, I know Onegin mostly from translations as well. I say mostly because I’m currently studying Russian, and have read parts of it in the language, but, at my current level, it’s still quite hard to progress within the poem without constant aid from a dictionary. It wasn't clear in my post, but, by Pushkin’s original, I meant mainly the novel as a source material, not necessarily the original Russian text. As far as my beginner’s assessment can be trusted, however (and having read, in English, only Johnston’s translation), I believe Onegin’s effect is better preserved in English than that of the author’s lyrical poetry. That’s probably, in part, due to the structural effectiveness of the Onegin stanza, but mostly due to the literary and narrative qualities which, in a large scale work, must remain despite the loss of its original linguistic form and textual nuances. Я вас любил [I loved you], for instance, probably sounds bland to an English language reader, even though it’s one of the favorite poems of the Russian public. Onegin, however, even if somewhat awkward in translation, can still be appreciated for its humor, for its sensuous and ornate style, for its colorful characterization, as well as for its different and interesting narrative layers. My first language is not English either, though, so I may be underestimating how awkward it really sounds in the translation.

I actually had not thought about it, but you may be right about The Nutcracker being representative of a new development in his style. The B minor symphony, his last completed piece, is a more melancholic work, but, then, he did not have to follow new tendencies in every piece. In any case, I feel the ballets are generally lighter than his other works, and, among the three, The Nutcracker is probably the lightest. Swan Lake, my favorite, contrasts lighter passages with tragic and melancholic ones, while Sleeping Beauty constantly turns to the dramatic and to the grandiose, being the most characteristically romantic. In The Nutcracker, however, the conflict of the play, besides not being emphasized, is quickly solved, leaving the remainder of the ballet in a completely light and magic scenery. Actually, however, in retrospect, I don’t know if this style would be the most adequate for replicating Pushkin’s tone, and I don’t even know if it could be effectively replicated in an operatic form, since much of the novel depends on the safe distance provided to the reader by the narrator.


I personally love Gershwin as I do very few composers of any kind. Something Robin Holloway wrote sticks with me: "the emotional charge of one of his great love songs is primal, going to the basis of pleasure more freely and directly than anything else in the whole range of music." (The whole chapter is worth reading: https://books.google.com/books?id=b0KonLPQndcC&pg=PA360)


That’s remarkable! Thank you. The book does not seem to be available in any of the local libraries, but I have saved it in my wishlist. I will be sure to order a copy from Amazon sometime.


I mostly don't think of Debussy as a melodist, exactly - a "colorist," maybe? - but certainly if you're going to write the history of melody in the early 20th century, then Fauré, Ravel, and Gershwin are three of the very greatest - maybe THE three greatest? - representatives.

My first impulse with the jazz-classical debate is to say: Who cares? In another few hundred years it'll all just be known as "early music" anyway. But the very fact that the debate exists proves that Gershwin was uniquely successful in bridging the two worlds (much more so than even Duke Ellington), so I guess in that respect it's worth keeping the debate alive, in order to recognize the magnitude of Gershwin's achievement.


I believe you are right about Debussy. His unique use of tone color is probably more important in his work than melody per se. I especially like his Pelléas et Mélisande, my favorite post-Wagner opera, and his pieces for piano. He is probably my favorite composer for the instrument since at least Chopin, and, considering I’m a pianist (though I don’t play professionally), he is especially meaningful to me. My favorite piece by Ravel is Daphnis et Chloé, in my view the best 20th century ballet not by Stravinsky, while my favorite part of Fauré’s works is probably constituted by his songs. Incidentally, which recordings do you favor for Gershwin’s songs? Are there any performers you find to be consistently satisfying in their interpretation? I agree with you concerning the jazz/classical debate, and I agree Gershwin was probably the best in bridging the two worlds. Whichever way the debate is looked upon in future history, however, I do hope that the tradition of classical music will not die out completely in the coming centuries! Although, admittedly, I’m not in the least sure about how music is going to develop from now on.


Of course, Sibelius! I always forget about him. And I didn't know Stravinsky said that! Did he point out particular passages in Mahler?


Yes, he mentioned excerpts from the first symphony’s fourth movement and from the second’s fifth movement. I read this observation in a book of interviews from the library of the institute where I received music education, but I don’t remember exactly which book it was. Perhaps it was “Conversations with Igor Stravinsky”. I forgot to annotate the exact bars, but, if my memory is correct, I believe these were the relevant parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XbHLFkg_Mw&t=51m10s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MPuoOj5TIw&t=56m35s

Personally, I notice the similarity with more ease in the example from the first symphony. When I referred a friend to this passage, he said he also saw some similarities between his fifth symphony and Tchaikovsky’s music, especially in part three.


Sometimes it's hard to say. For example, Richard Rodgers' waltzes (the opening of Carousel, "Oh What a Beautiful Morning," "My Favorite Things," "Falling in Love with Love," and so on) sound to me more like Tchaikovsky's than they do like Johann Strauss, Jr.'s or Ravel's. But is that a result of influence, direct or indirect, or just a coincidence? I'm not sure.

I think we can at least say that, assuming Tchaikovsky is an essential influence on Gershwin, or at least on the lyrical side of Gershwin, then it follows that he's an influence at one remove on everybody who was subsequently influenced by that side of Gershwin. This would include later generations of popular songwriters - I'm not yet confident enough in my history there to say who and when, but I assume everybody can agree that Gershwin was an important direct influence on SOME important later popular songwriters and then an indirect influence on others - and also maybe Leonard Bernstein, e.g. in the heavenly pas de deux from On the Town - which doesn't necessarily sound anything like Tchaikovsky, but I think you can trace a lineage back to the slow movement of Gershwin's piano concerto, and from there to the slow part of "The Rhapsody in Blue," and from THERE, maybe, to the old Russian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdGM24kP8mc&t=3m46s


Those are great examples. Thank you!

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

I'm sorry about your dog! Happy to hear she's stable, though - hope she gets well soon. So, naturally, I still haven't finished what I intended to have done by Friday, so instead of just putting off my answer indefinitely, here's a quick and sloppy answer that I may or may not add to later. I feel particularly bad about this because your own posts in this thread are such a joy to read. Sorry!

- Some of my personal favorite lighter Stravinsky pieces are from BEFORE his Neoclassical period - before lightness became a conscious goal, you might say. Renard; the first of the three pieces of string quartet (the second and third are probably more important, but not at all "light," so not relevant to the topic here); the five Russian peasant songs (something extraordinary about these to me is how much they remind me of William Duckworth's Southern Harmony songs - it's as if Stravinsky developed an idiom so effective that, after La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Pauline Oliveros, et al. invented minimalism in the early 1960s, then the "post-minimalists," and even late-comers to minimalism such as Steve Reich and Philip Glass, could still apply Stravinsky's methods to new ideas as productively as Poulenc, Copland, and so on did half a century earlier).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUepDjGgUnc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE_LPen3I68

- Two neoclassical pieces by Stravinsky that have special meaning for me are the slow movement from the Symphony in Three Movements, and the introduction to Orpheus. I heard the former as a child, without knowing it, loosely adapted into the wedding music in Le roi et l'oiseau (actually I never even liked the adaptation very much, but what Stravinsky does with it is lovely, and it's a revelation to hear how much more can be done with a motif that I've had stuck in my head since childhood). And I heard the latter as an adolescent, without knowing it, at two removes - as the "Arcadia" cue in The Vision of Escaflowne, which is adapted from the first movement of Górecki's third symphony, which is adapted from Stravinsky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHsN9ynVbU&index=6&list=PLhB2pB8ErmvKxaYY39bkVkrzY9_5aLcjG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJavf7DPexI&list=PL0A7599AE55A2EC28&index=1

- re: interpretations of Gershwin: Ooooh boy, this is an obsession of mine. I find many Gershwin performances distinctly UNsatisfying - I find jazz and big band singers - to a lesser extent even singers in Broadway revivals - tend to take the ballads so slow,y that the melody effectively ceases to exist, while most performances of the faster songs, as of the 1950s, have the lurching rhythm popularized typified by Frank Sinatra-Nelson Riddle records - which, applied to Gershwin, is approximately analogous to the Meyerbeer-style ornamentation that Shaw complained about in a 1916 performance of The Marriage of Figaro.

Some examples of what I regard as Gershwin done right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyqje_jdA8E (I could really do without the second half where they repeat the refrain with added grou singing, but whatever.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOILZ_D3aRg&1m5s (Fred Astaire's persona creeps me out and of course his singing is merely serviceable, but given the available alternatives, I'll take it.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX2KeQ5Uqw4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VjyGArkHM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2UkcpL9q_s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXLqAmXPQIk

And I listen to the Nonesuch recordings of complete Broadway scores from the late '80s, early '90s a lot, because I'm grateful to have an idea of what the actual shows Gershwin wrote were like, but unfortunately I find the performances inadequate at best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2di6MIVVC8&list=PLMlfGgR7j1iSU9pkOxrEdFEeby1IzhFry&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgKuMN1mBa0&list=PLUSRfoOcUe4Zl-hAlSVh3aERoiOJkenPT&index=1


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


I'm sorry about your dog! Happy to hear she's stable, though - hope she gets well soon. So, naturally, I still haven't finished what I intended to have done by Friday, so instead of just putting off my answer indefinitely, here's a quick and sloppy answer that I may or may not add to later. I feel particularly bad about this because your own posts in this thread are such a joy to read. Sorry!


Thank you, she got better by last Tuesday, although she started to recede again by Friday, probably due to pancreatitis. She’s currently under observation back at the hospital. Since she is a puppy, being an internee is still, unfortunately, quite a traumatic experience to her, although it could not be avoided. Truly a tough week. Concerning your response, don’t worry! I truly appreciate it. And thank you, too, for your kind words regarding my posts. I’m sorry for not keeping up with the board’s pace, but, this term, at least for the moment, I’m facing some difficulty in finding the time to engage in forum activity for more than one or two times a week.


Some of my personal favorite lighter Stravinsky pieces are from BEFORE his Neoclassical period - before lightness became a conscious goal, you might say. Renard; the first of the three pieces of string quartet (the second and third are probably more important, but not at all "light," so not relevant to the topic here); the five Russian peasant songs (something extraordinary about these to me is how much they remind me of William Duckworth's Southern Harmony songs - it's as if Stravinsky developed an idiom so effective that, after La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Pauline Oliveros, et al. invented minimalism in the early 1960s, then the "post-minimalists," and even late-comers to minimalism such as Steve Reich and Philip Glass, could still apply Stravinsky's methods to new ideas as productively as Poulenc, Copland, and so on did half a century earlier).


Interesting choices! I usually associate Stravinsky’s lighter side more with his neoclassical period, but I agree these pieces are even better than the ones he composed later – Renard, in special, is one of my favorites from Stravinsky. The first of the Three pieces for string quartet is also quite stimulating. I didn’t recollect it as I thought about his lighter pieces before reading your post, however, probably because the other two left a stronger impression on me, and probably because I also associate them with the late quartets of Bartók. Although I may be wrong, Bartók’s quartets seem, to me, to be indebted to Stravinsky’s three pieces, especially to the second one. Even if I’m wrong about the specific works which inspired Bartók, however, I’m quite sure the changes observed in the style of his string quartets during the 1920’s were most likely provoked by Stravinsky’s influence. For their part, his string quartets were probably an influence in Ligeti’s own works in the genre, and perhaps, although I’m not completely sure, on Xenakis’ Metastaseis and Ligeti’s own Atmosphères. It’s outstanding how Stravinsky could transition with such ease from a lighter to a heavier mode, while concurrently maintaining a comical demeanor. I had not listened to the four peasant songs before, but I loved them as well. Your observation is also fascinating! Indeed, William Duckworth's Southern Harmony does resemble a lot Stravinsky’s songs. Incidentally, are there any recent vocal works which you consider especially interesting?


- Two neoclassical pieces by Stravinsky that have special meaning for me are the slow movement from the Symphony in Three Movements, and the introduction to Orpheus. I heard the former as a child, without knowing it, loosely adapted into the wedding music in Le roi et l'oiseau (actually I never even liked the adaptation very much, but what Stravinsky does with it is lovely, and it's a revelation to hear how much more can be done with a motif that I've had stuck in my head since childhood). And I heard the latter as an adolescent, without knowing it, at two removes - as the "Arcadia" cue in The Vision of Escaflowne, which is adapted from the first movement of Górecki's third symphony, which is adapted from Stravinsky.


These are quite remarkable stories! Thank you for sharing. I watched Le roi et l'oiseau as a child as well, but, previously, I was never able to identify that theme as an adaptation of Stravinsky. Probably because I’m not as well ear-trained as you, and probably also because I have not seen it since. After you mentioned it, however, I checked the wedding sequence again, and, indeed, the wedding theme closely resembles the movement in Andante of his Symphony in Three Movements. Interestingly, I was actually introduced to Stravinsky by an animated feature – in my case, the original Fantasia. My parents didn’t like either modern classical music or popular music, so, except for a few composers of their preference, I was only exposed by them to common practice pieces during my formative years, when I was raised to think of other styles of music as inferior and unnoteworthy. Sometime after watching Fantasia, I became able to enjoy Stravinsky and, eventually, Schönberg, as well as more recent classical music and some popular music. Nevertheless, I never cease to be amazed at how greatly the early years of our education impact everything that is to come. Most of my favorite 20th century classical composers are from the first half (or, really, first fifth) of the century, while the popular musicians which I feel compelled to revisit frequently could probably be counted on my fingers. Part of this probably comes from the fact that I generally hold the great composers from the baroque to early modernism in higher critical estimation than most popular, high modern and postmodern music, but how to know for sure whether even my critical evaluation is not in great part determined by my upbringing? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

That is an interesting fact about Arcadia! Orpheus is probably my favorite from his neoclassical period, although The Rake's Progress may be his most accomplished neoclassical piece. Incidentally, how do you feel about this period of his music? Do you think it’s successful, be it for itself, in comparison with his previous music or with that of other composers? I would be curious to know what are your thoughts on it. Changing the subject, taking your examples into account, I presume animation probably had a significant role in your childhood and adolescence, what is probably true of me as well. Do you have any favorite animated works or animators? I saw The Vision of Escaflowne as a child, but have not seen it since. I do remember, however, that its soundtrack was selected, arranged and composed by Yoko Kanno, whose work I love. I find her approach satisfying, and she is excellent at discerning which pieces could be used to greater effect at each given segment, as well as how they could be best arranged – not to mention that her occasional compositions are usually good and adequate for their use. Since it’s been a decade since I saw it, I don’t remember that much about her work specifically in Escaflowne, even though I remember it was one of my favorite parts. I rewatched Cowboy Bebop recently, however, and I was surprised to notice that, unlike most series from my childhood, I actually found it even better now. The way its excellent soundtrack exerts a major role in providing an immersive experience to the viewer is amazing; even the superficially, but only slightly interesting genre experimentation serves mainly as an appropriate vehicle for the music. On the surface, the series is very close in style to Tarantino, but I find it richer in human sensibility and, therefore, easier to sympathize with. I believe its narrative appeal is close to that of the more humane side of John Ford (like in My Darling Clementine), or, in its more comic occasions, to that of the Coen Brothers’ gentler moments. Meanwhile, Tarantino’s appeal is probably closer to that of Flannery O’ Connor, who aimed at emotional effect through shock (generally through violence and taboo), grotesque irony, dark and bawdy comedy, and moral fantasizing. In my view, the use of music in both universes also embodies this difference. While tracks like Blue and Green Bird emphasize the characters’ emotional states and human drama involving the action, Tarantino usually uses music as stylization (even if, sometimes, very effective stylization). Incidentally, concerning anime and classical music, have you watched Princess Tutu?


- re: interpretations of Gershwin: Ooooh boy, this is an obsession of mine. I find many Gershwin performances distinctly UNsatisfying - I find jazz and big band singers - to a lesser extent even singers in Broadway revivals - tend to take the ballads so slow,y that the melody effectively ceases to exist, while most performances of the faster songs, as of the 1950s, have the lurching rhythm popularized typified by Frank Sinatra-Nelson Riddle records - which, applied to Gershwin, is approximately analogous to the Meyerbeer-style ornamentation that Shaw complained about in a 1916 performance of The Marriage of Figaro.


Thank you very much for your examples! I greatly enjoyed them. Gershwin’s radio broadcasts were especially lovely and interesting. I feel the same about jazz singers, and completely agree with you. Even in the case of some of the major jazz performers, like Ella Fitzgerald, the ballads from the songbook repertory are usually interpreted way too slowly. Although I enjoy listening to some of her or Armstrong’s key records sometimes, this is a recurrent frustration for me in their work. The predominance of Sinatra’s approach in later recordings is also unnerving, especially when it has been applied to just about every type of song since.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


Even if I’m wrong about the specific works which inspired Bartók, however, I’m quite sure the changes observed in the style of his string quartets during the 1920’s were most likely provoked by Stravinsky’s influence. For their part, his string quartets were probably an influence in Ligeti’s own works in the genre, and perhaps, although I’m not completely sure, on Xenakis’ Metastaseis and Ligeti’s own Atmosphères.

I think you're absolutely correct about all of this, and would add only

1. I've seen a case made (persuasively, I think) that in addition to being influenced by music from Stravinsky's Nationalist period, Bartók also experienced an ultimately productive creative crisis as a result of his encounter with the music of Stravinsky's Neoclassical period (specifically the concerto for piano and winds): http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/arts/bartok-and-stravinsky-odd-couple-reunited.html

2. I think (or rather agree with other people who thought it before me) that a substantial amount of Berg's "Lyric Suite" - and of course by extension Schönberg - also got into Bartók from his 3rd quartet onward.


Incidentally, are there any recent vocal works which you consider especially interesting?

Does 1998 count as recent?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4bOcE_laMs&list=PL9wnX-fT2pdWFN8rvyrojiU47PypLTyj0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjj_vNGMR2I

I link to two performances, because I think the singer in the Lyon performance is better, but the YouTube video of the Vienna performance lets you follow along with the score, which I like to do with spectral music just because I find them somehow visually pleasing.

I have mixed feelings about Gérard Grisey and spectral music generally. Spectralism is supposed to be the pleasure-principle-embracing French rebellion against serialism, but to me it still represents a France aligning itself more with Germany (here represented by Karlheinz Stockhausen) than with America, and an anti-consumerist rejection of popular culture (somebody said in a review of some piece by Kaija Saariaho that contemporary European classical composers seem afraid NOT to include a noisy climax somewhere in each of their pieces, as it that would be decadent; and that charge certainly seems to apply to Grisey). In other words, a soundtrack for the mentality that ultimately produced the current austerity regime in France. (Éliane Radigue, affiliated with Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henry on the one hand, and with La Monte Young and the American minimalists in general on the other, probably isn't a greater composer than Grisey, but I think she represents a better world. SHE isn't afraid to write pieces without a climax. No vocal music from her, though.)

Be that as it may, however, I think Grisey really did hit on something new and fascinating toward the end of the first of his quatre chants: as the instruments begin to play the overtones that the singer is producing, so you almost can't tell whIch sounds are coming from the singer and which from the instruments. And of course there's more in the piece than just that.


Orpheus is probably my favorite from his neoclassical period, although The Rake's Progress may be his most accomplished neoclassical piece. Incidentally, how do you feel about this period of his music? Do you think it’s successful, be it for itself, in comparison with his previous music or with that of other composers? I would be curious to know what are your thoughts on it.

I think the other major composer who is closest to Stravinsky in his Neoclassical phase is Haydn in his mature phase (roughly from the Op. 33 "Scherzo" quartets of 1780 onward). That is, these are composers who have drastically minimized the Dionysian aspect of their art. (Not that Neoclassical Stravinsky is necessarily optimistic, of course - but the tightly controlled pessimism of his Oedipus rex stands in obvious contrast to the wildness of The Rite of Spring.) In both cases, this gives their work what we can maybe call a certain "impersonal" quality, that in the long run is probably the reason why Haydn fell behind Mozart and Beethoven in popularity, and will likewise probably prevent Neoclassical-period Stravinsky from ever being as popular as Bartók (though I hope he'll eventually overtake that second rate popularizer of his ideas, Shostakovich).

Insofar as I can be objective, I guess Neoclassical-period Stravinsky never wrote anything quite as great as The Rite of Spring or The Wedding. But then, arguably neither did anybody else from 1922 through 1951. And Neoclassical-period Stravinsky is certainly equal to the other greatest composers of 1922-1951 - Schönberg, Bartók, and whoever else. I would say he's the probably the greatest composer of that time period - neither Schönberg nor Bartók ever quite gives me the sensation of being in the presence of supernatural genius, like Neoclassical Stravinsky sometimes does, e.g. the coda to the last movement of the Symphony of Psalms.

Also, since you got me thinking about what my favorite Stravinsky piece from this period might be - oh God, it's probably the Symphony of Psalms, because I'm boring. That aside, I love the 3rd part of Persephone ("Renaissance") (to which I swear Britten's "Friday Afternoons" - or as it is now known to consumers of American popular culture, those boys' choir songs in Moonrise Kingdom - bears a resemblance, though the pieces were written concurrently, by composers who almost certainly were not communicating with each other).

How do YOU feel about this period in his music?


Changing the subject, taking your examples into account, I presume animation probably had a significant role in your childhood and adolescence, what is probably true of me as well. Do you have any favorite animated works or animators? I saw The Vision of Escaflowne as a child, but have not seen it since. I do remember, however, that its soundtrack was selected, arranged and composed by Yoko Kanno, whose work I love. I find her approach satisfying, and she is excellent at discerning which pieces could be used to greater effect at each given segment, as well as how they could be best arranged – not to mention that her occasional compositions are usually good and adequate for their use. Since it’s been a decade since I saw it, I don’t remember that much about her work specifically in Escaflowne, even though I remember it was one of my favorite parts. I rewatched Cowboy Bebop recently, however, and I was surprised to notice that, unlike most series from my childhood, I actually found it even better now. The way its excellent soundtrack exerts a major role in providing an immersive experience to the viewer is amazing; even the superficially, but only slightly interesting genre experimentation serves mainly as an appropriate vehicle for the music. On the surface, the series is very close in style to Tarantino, but I find it richer in human sensibility and, therefore, easier to sympathize with. I believe its narrative appeal is close to that of the more humane side of John Ford (like in My Darling Clementine), or, in its more comic occasions, to that of the Coen Brothers’ gentler moments. Meanwhile, Tarantino’s appeal is probably closer to that of Flannery O’ Connor, who aimed at emotional effect through shock (generally through violence and taboo), grotesque irony, dark and bawdy comedy, and moral fantasizing. In my view, the use of music in both universes also embodies this difference. While tracks like Blue and Green Bird emphasize the characters’ emotional states and human drama involving the action, Tarantino usually uses music as stylization (even if, sometimes, very effective stylization). Incidentally, concerning anime and classical music, have you watched Princess Tutu?

Anime reviewer Jacob Chapman once posted something on Twitter about Tarantino versus Cowboy Bebop - earlier this year, I guess - that struck me as exactly right: Tarantino is hot. Cowboy Bebop is COLD.

I haven't read Flannery O'Connor and so can't comment on that, but I agree that Cowboy Bebop is essentially closer to the Coen brothers than Tarantino, and especially to John Ford. Which brings me to another observation by Chapman, who has also said that Cowboy Bebop reminds him of Steinbeck (and more specifically the relationships between men in Steinbeck) - which I would amend to Steinbeck's master, Hemingway. In retrospect, Cowboy Bebop seems VERY Hemingway-ish to me - for worse as well as for better; e.g. how the last we see of Faye is her crying, in contrast to Jet's stoic demeanor. Of course some people have suggested that the entire American noir and hard boiled detective genres are basically popularized Hemingway, by way of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, et al. But I think there is probably also a direct</I> and <i>conscious Hemingway influence on Cowboy Bebop - you could say that, rather than merely pastiching the American noir tradition, the Cowboy Bebop creators have gone back to the source of that tradition - and the creators want you to know it's there: note that Jet, in his final attempt to convince Spike to let go of his past, tells him a slightly inaccurate version of "The Snows of Kilimanjaro."

re: your point about how music in Cowboy Bebop versus Tarantino - I think you're right, and I think this illustrates the artistic purpose that is served by Kanno (and so many other film and tv composers) so often borrowing (stealing) and slightly rewriting other people's music: the result is that all the music in the film or television series is at least somewhat informed by the same personality. As the music becomes part of our impression of the characters, and the world they inhabit, they partly take on the composer's personality. And then conversely, as we hear more of the composer's music and thus discover more aspects of her personality, we at the same time are discovering more about the characters and the world of the film or television series. None of this can happen when the soundtrack is selected from pre-existing recordings of various different artists' music. (We do learn something about the personality of whoever did the selecting, but that's a vastly more limited form of expression.)

Let's see, favorite cartoons... Anime and I go WAY back. Visiting family in Austria when I was a kid (early 1990s), my brother and I would watch it because it was all over children's tv there, without even knowing it was Japanese. For all we knew, we were watching German cartoons. (My favorite at the time was probably Attack No. 1, or as we knew it, "Mila Superstar" - a girls' volleyball show from the late '60s.)

Later I got the whole story for the internet, and I saw most of the things you'd expect a teenage casual anime fan to see in the late '90s, early '00s. In retrospect, though I didn't think of it as one of my favorites when I first watched it, the show that had the longest-lasting effect on me was probably Revolutionary Girl Utena. If I'd been born 10 years later, I think the same might have been true of Kunihiko Ikuhara's next big project (the man likes to take his time and good for him), Penguindrum.

I haven't watched Princess Tutu, though I have watched Chapman's review of it (from back when he was presenting as Hope/JesuOtaku), so I know that I should.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


Insofar as I can be objective, I guess Neoclassical-period Stravinsky never wrote anything quite as great as The Rite of Spring or The Wedding. But then, arguably neither did anybody else from 1922 through 1951.

Or alternately, maybe, just as many people now think The Trojans is Berlioz's masterpiece, and Moses and Aron is Schönberg's (I'd probably still vote for the Symphonie fantastique or Romeo and Juliet, and Erwartung or Pierrot lunaire), maybe many people will eventually decide that The Rake's Progress is Stravinsky's masterpiece. Or maybe many people already have. I don't know, nobody tells me anything.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Thank you for your replies! I’m sorry for staying away and for postponing once again my post on Byron. Since I had left too many reading notes, it took longer than I expected for me to compile everything and select what would probably be the most interesting for you, but I’m almost finishing it. Additionally, the previous week was both my last week of classes and exams and my birthday week (my birthday was on Thursday), so I was in a bit of a hurry. Happily, however, I am now mostly free until February. I have an appointment at the doctor now, but I will stop by tonight to respond to your posts and, hopefully, finish my other post. As an apology, I’m sending you some of the poems I translated. I will be commenting on them once I’m back.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

I don't think you have anything to apologize for! I've been at least as slow as you with these replies. (Real life responsibilities suck.) Greatly looking forward to your reply whenever it's convenient for you to post it. Please take all the time you want! God knows I do.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Forgot to say:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XbHLFkg_Mw&t=51m10s

Wow! Yes, once you're listening for it, it's unmistakable!


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


I think we can at least say that, assuming Tchaikovsky is an essential influence on Gershwin, or at least on the lyrical side of Gershwin, then it follows that he's an influence at one remove on everybody who was subsequently influenced by that side of Gershwin. This would include later generations of popular songwriters - I'm not yet confident enough in my history there to say who and when, but I assume everybody can agree that Gershwin was an important direct influence on SOME important later popular songwriters and then an indirect influence on others - and also maybe Leonard Bernstein, e.g. in the heavenly pas de deux from On the Town - which doesn't necessarily sound anything like Tchaikovsky, but I think you can trace a lineage back to the slow movement of Gershwin's piano concerto, and from there to the slow part of "The Rhapsody in Blue," and from THERE, maybe, to the old Russian.

Ok I think I'm ready to drop the "maybe." Compare the slow part of the "Rhapsody in Blue" to this from the conclusion of Tchaikovsky's piano concerto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsb1GIhhJfg&t=31m55s (time stamp 31:55)

and maybe even more, compare what happens a few seconds later in Tchaikovsky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsb1GIhhJfg&t=32m06s (time stamp 32:06)

to this from Gershwin's second rhapsody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVtbCFoDc9c&t=7m58s (time stamp 7:58)


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

I would have thought that any composer being compared to Bach would have to be at least excellent...thus the comparison falls down immediately.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

On the basis of stylistic affinities, I believe the comparison could stand even if both Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov were mere imitators. Nonetheless, I prefer not to read analogies too literally, since, in closer scrutiny, there are almost always important differences.

Anyway, more importantly, I remember reading you write highly of Wagner in the biopic thread as I browsed the board after creating my account. Have you listened to the opera The invisible city of Kitezh, about which fontinau and I briefly discussed above? I believe Wagner’s influence on Rimsky-Korsakov was the most fruitful in this particular piece. Even though it’s not written entirely in a Wagnerian style, if you did not like his more performed pieces, perhaps this one could be closer to your taste. Here is a video recording, if you are interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48RCln26Rtk

Unfortunately, I did not find a translated version of the libretto online. If you don’t feel disposed to watch the whole opera, you could also check a shorter orchestral suite based on some of its most famous parts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1OozitPlWU

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Hi Vox. No, I've not listened to that opera, so might give it a shot with the hi-fi tonight...or at least the 'greatest hits' you posted too; thank you.

I'm not hugely anti-R-K (I can listen to a couple of movements of Reiner's fabulous recording of Scheherazade every few years or so), I just feel any comparison to Bach & his godlike bearing is silly, especially, as you say, when R-K wasn't an imitator.

I'm sometimes a little wary of 'influence', alas. I listened to Bruckner 3 the other day & its nods to Wagner certainly make you think of Wagner, but, for me at least, it made me also want to turn off the Bruckner & play some Wagner instead. Some composers just can't be touched...though Debussy's 'homage' to Tristan in his Golliwog's Cakewalk is rather fun; Debussy's class allows him to do that.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


I'm sometimes a little wary of 'influence', alas. I listened to Bruckner 3 the other day & its nods to Wagner certainly make you think of Wagner, but, for me at least, it made me also want to turn off the Bruckner & play some Wagner instead.

You could come at it from the other direction: Stravinsky's Firebird is heavily influenced by Rimsky's Kitezh - and Rimsky's may be the superior work.



-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


You could come at it from the other direction: Stravinsky's Firebird is heavily influenced by Rimsky's Kitezh - and Rimsky's may be the superior work.


That is high praise! I do tend to agree, however. I never knew how much I underestimated Rimsky-Korsakov before listening to it.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

I don't know Kitezh I'm afraid, but I still feel I don't have to to know that the Firebird wins on the superiority front. I do adore it so perhaps that affects my opinion. Interesting re the influence front though - I might have to take a listen.

How come Kitezh is relatively unknown if it's so good? It's not as if R-K is unknown himself.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


How come Kitezh is relatively unknown if it's so good? It's not as if R-K is unknown himself.

In a sense, R-K is unknown (outside of Russia), because the works he's widely known for outside of Russia - Scheherazade and, well, mostly just Scheherazade! - are not very representative of his best work. Sort of a more extreme case of Liszt's being best known for the second Hungarian rhapsody.


-----

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Good points, especially re Liszt...food for thought.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.


Hi Vox. No, I've not listened to that opera, so might give it a shot with the hi-fi tonight...or at least the 'greatest hits' you posted too; thank you.


Hello, fud-slush. Don't mention it! I hope you find something of interest in it.


I'm not hugely anti-R-K (I can listen to a couple of movements of Reiner's fabulous recording of Scheherazade every few years or so), I just feel any comparison to Bach & his godlike bearing is silly, especially, as you say, when R-K wasn't an imitator.


I see, I understand your point of view. The contribution of Bach’s music was certainly far beyond that of Rimsky-Korsakov’s, just as Haydn and Mozart, who were educated under the influence of his sons, were greater than Stravinsky, RK’s student, his immense talent notwithstanding. Personally, however, I suppose I feel much less sensitive to comparisons between different classes of composers than you do, especially when, as in this case, I believe they enclose interesting historical and creative analogies. For, no matter how much different was the scale of their contributions and historical contexts, both Bach and Rimsky-Korsakov, for their formal efforts and engagement to musical education, were important in the establishment of important musical movements that were to emerge within their spheres of influence. Likewise, although Handel is probably far superior to Tchaikovsky in most respects, both certainly had a common gift for writing beautiful melodies and giving them prominence within their works.

Moreover, if we were to abstain from comparing Bach with composers who were far removed from him in merit, we might run into a different problem, as it might be difficult to select, among composers of comparable talent, anyone that is similar at all. Beethoven may be closer to Bach in many respects than Mozart was, but that was due to the fact the he was responding to the classical style, which was itself a gradual response to late baroque. Perhaps Palestrina, if renaissance music could even be considered as comparable in its contributions to the baroque? Although, in terms of style, perhaps Ockeghem would be a closer match to Bach within the period. Or, alternatively, we could also abstain from comparisons, but that, at least in my view, would not be a fruitful alternative. Just as artists have to compare others’ styles to deliberate on their own, I believe it’s productive for the public to think about art comparatively. We just have to be cautious not to read such contrasts too literally, nor make them more important than either appreciation or understanding.


I'm sometimes a little wary of 'influence', alas. I listened to Bruckner 3 the other day & its nods to Wagner certainly make you think of Wagner, but, for me at least, it made me also want to turn off the Bruckner & play some Wagner instead. Some composers just can't be touched...though Debussy's 'homage' to Tristan in his Golliwog's Cakewalk is rather fun; Debussy's class allows him to do that.


I feel the same in many cases, especially when transitioning from the works of a greater composer to pieces written by a lesser one. Even though I love late Wagner, for instance, I don’t really like Richard Strauss all that much. Nevertheless, depending on one’s reasons for liking a composer, it may still be an indication of possible enjoyment, even though it does not necessarily say anything about the influenced piece’s merit. Looking it the other way around, however, like fontinau’s post suggests, brings a new dimension to the problem. If the preceding piece innovated a set of ideas which were to be used by a following prominent piece, it certainly means something about its merit. If these ideas are judged to be of greater contribution than the ones innovated by the following piece, then it means even more about it. If they are judged to have been better used by the preceding piece, and to greater effect, then it must mean even more. Or, at least, that’s how it works in my own informal system of critical evaluation. Although the perceived merit of a piece is certainly a good indication that I will like it as well at least on some sense, however, it does not necessarily mean that I will like it more than a lesser piece. Judgment and taste are different things, although they occasionally overlap, probably due to their shared subjective component.

Re: Tchaikovsky is Russia's Handel and Rimsky-Korsakov is Russia's Bach.

Fantastic thread.
Top