You can definitely feel the heritage of the great romantic Russian composers in this piece it is a great symphony regardless 38:55 this out of context felt so Stravinsky though
3 ปีที่แล้ว +3
So wonderful to listen to this. So many little teeny hints of things to come. As a composer I feel such a strong connection and appreciate Stravinsky (often accused of being Moderninsky) as one that took us on a journey forward, yet as the years went by connected and respected the history of western art music. Igor is still one of my most favorite 20th Century composers. I didn't love everything he did, but neither did I of the Beatles, John Lennon. They shared a journey and I'm grateful to have been in attendance.
This piece always make me happy. Maybe the brightest lights of the juvenile spirit of Stravinsky is craved in it. And also the georgian musicians are heckin' sexy.
Excelente interpretación y dirección, gracias por subir éste video. ¿Podrías agregar más información sobre la obra? Desconocía ésta tan hermosa pieza de Igor. Saludos desde Argentina.
Igor Fiodorovitch Stravinsky (en russe : Игорь Фёдорович Стравинский), né le 17 juin 1882 à Oranienbaum en Russie et mort le 6 avril 1971 à New York aux États-Unis, est un compositeur, chef d'orchestre et pianiste russe (naturalisé français en 1934, puis américain en 1945) de musique moderne, considéré comme l'un des compositeurs les plus influents du xxe siècle. L'œuvre de Stravinsky s'étend sur près de soixante-dix années. Elle se caractérise par sa grande diversité de styles. Le compositeur accède à la célébrité par la création de trois ballets dont il compose la musique pour les Ballets russes de Diaghilev : L'Oiseau de feu (1910), Petrouchka (1911) et son œuvre maîtresse Le Sacre du printemps (1913) qui ont eu une influence considérable sur la façon d'aborder le rythme en musique classique. Dans les années 1920, sa production musicale prend un virage néoclassique et renoue avec des formes traditionnelles (concerto grosso, fugue et symphonie). Dans les années 1950, enfin, Igor Stravinsky explore les possibilités de la musique sérielle. Biographie Feodor Stravinski dans l'opéra Roussalka d'Alexandre Dargomyjski. Igor Stravinsky est né le 17 juin 1882 à Oranienbaum (actuellement Lomonossov) en Russie, où ses parents se trouvaient en vacances, mais il passe toute son enfance au 66 Krioukov Kanal, à Saint-Pétersbourg, où la famille Strawiński réside. Son père, Feodor Stravinski est une basse chantant au théâtre Mariinsky. Igor Stravinsky est le troisième d'une famille de quatre enfants. Les parents Stravinsky sont sévères et les rapports qu'il a avec ses deux frères aînés sont également froids : « Il ne me montrait de tendresse que lorsque j'étais malade1 », écrit-il à propos de son père dans Souvenirs et commentaires. Malgré le fait que son père soit un chanteur de renom, le jeune Stravinsky n'a que très peu de contacts avec la musique classique dans sa jeunesse. En 1890, à huit ans, La Belle au bois dormant de Tchaïkovski et plus tard Une vie pour le tsar de Glinka restent ses deux seules expériences de concert importantes de son enfance2. Igor commence des leçons de piano à l'âge de neuf ans et « ne semble du reste pas montrer de dispositions particulières pour la musique3 ». Ce que le jeune enfant aimait le plus faire au piano, c'était improviser, malgré les nombreux reproches qu'on lui faisait. « Ce travail continu d'improvisations n'était pas absolument stérile, car il contribuait d'une part à une meilleure connaissance du piano, et d'autre part faisait germer des idées musicales4 », écrit-il dans ses Chroniques de ma vie. À son premier professeur succédera Mme Khachperova, élève d'Anton Rubinstein, qui fait travailler à Stravinsky le répertoire classique et romantique d'une manière très autoritaire, allant même jusqu'à interdire totalement l'usage de la pédale. Ses premiers essais de composition n'étant pas suffisamment satisfaisants, son père l'inscrit à la faculté de droit de Saint-Pétersbourg en 1901. Durant la même période, il prend des leçons d'harmonie et de contrepoint. Quoique l'étude de l'harmonie ne lui donne « aucune satisfaction5 », il s'exerce beaucoup au contrepoint pour son propre compte. Cependant, le décès de son père le 21 novembre 1902 lui enlève un poids considérable. Même s'il reste inscrit pendant quatre ans à l'université, il n'assiste au plus qu'à une cinquantaine de cours. Il passe maintenant ses soirées au théâtre Mariinski et aux concerts symphoniques de la Société impériale et fait d'autres essais de composition, dont le chant Nuages d'orage et un Scherzo pour piano. Igor Stravinsky (à gauche) et Nikolaï Rimski-Korsakov (à la droite de Stravinsky sur la photo, à sa gauche en réalité) en 1908. Le point tournant de l'éducation musicale de Stravinsky est sa rencontre avec Nikolaï Rimski-Korsakov pendant l'été 1902. « Je lui exposai mon désir de devenir compositeur et lui demandai son avis6. », raconte-t-il. Le célèbre compositeur, lui déconseillant le Conservatoire, lui dit qu'il serait prêt à lui enseigner une fois qu'il aurait acquis les notions élémentaires d'harmonie et de contrepoint. C'est l'été suivant que Rimski-Korsakov commence à lui donner des leçons, après avoir entendu sa Sonate pour piano en fa dièse mineur. Ces enseignements, qui continuèrent jusqu'à la mort de Rimski-Korsakov, se sont principalement centrés sur l'art de l'orchestration et des formes classiques. « Il me donnait à orchestrer des pages de la partition de piano d'un nouvel opéra qu'il venait d'achever. Quand j'avais orchestré un fragment, il me montrait son instrumentation personnelle du même morceau. Je devais confronter les deux et c'est encore moi qui devais lui expliquer pourquoi lui l'avait orchestré autrement. Dans le cas où je n'y arrivais pas, c'est lui qui me l'expliquait7. » Igor Stravinsky épouse en 1906 sa cousine Catherine Gavrilovna Nosenko qui lui donnera quatre enfants : Fiodor (dit Théodore) en 1907, Ludmila en 1908, Sviatoslav (dit Soulima) en 1910 et Milena (dite Milène) en 1914. La première œuvre composée par Stravinsky lors de son apprentissage avec Rimski-Korsakov est la Symphonie en mi bémol, en 1907. Suivront le Scherzo fantastique et Feu d'artifice, celui-ci interrompu à l'annonce de la mort de son maître le 21 juin 1908. Stravinsky compose alors un Chant funèbre à sa mémoire, œuvre perdue durant la Révolution russe et retrouvée en 2015 8. La création du Feu d'artifice, le 6 février 1909, est décisive pour la carrière du compositeur, car Serge de Diaghilev est présent.
This is a tricky symphony to play: Stravinsky's scoring has lots of unisons and octaves that leave no room for error. At Maestro Gersamia's flexible and often expanded tempi, it becomes especially tough, evident at times here. Compare these tempi to Pletnev's, especially the slower section in the Scherzo and in the whole of the Largo. I'm a little torn: I'm not sure the material--which is derivative but interesting (and fun to play!)--supports the expansive reading; but it is intriguing to hear this take on a marvelous piece. Thanks!
Stravinsky, by my taste and enjoyment, was one of the most interesting and unique composers of his time. Much of the unwashed public has no taste for good composition such as the preceding comments reveal.
BOTH STRAVINSKI AND FRANZ LISZT WROTE THEIR EARLIEST WORKS IN AN OUTDATED STYLE OF IMMATURITY AND CONVENTION. THANKFULLY THEY BOTH DEVELOPED INTO THE WONDERGUL CONTRIBUTION WHICH THEY MADE TO MUSICAL ADVANCEMENT AND SOPHISTACATION. SOME PEOPLE, LAMENTABLY, ARE STILL TRAPED IN THE PAST WHERE THEY ARE IN THE SAFE ZONE OF NOT BEING CHALLENGED TO GROW AND EXPLORE NEW HORIZONS.
If Stravinsky would have kept writing in this vein while writing the Firebird or Rite of Spring, his reception among the public would have been more welcome. It seems that his appeal was more to modernists and acadamia. Sorry, folks, but he loses me at Rite of Spring. Just an awful, boring and dissonant piece. No wonder there was a riot and fist fights at the Rite's premiere in 1913.
Pipestud3 CorncobPuffer You will probably never change your opinion but more listening and more exposure to more “modern” techniques would help. The Rite is dissonant but also rich, colorful, exciting, mysterious and bewilderingly complex. More listening helps. Like scotch, or certain foods, it’s an acquired taste. At any rate, I love Stravinsky and the Rite. You might like Apollo or the symphony in C. Who knows?
@@charlesmchugh8811 Yup, my favorite work in the XXth century, and pretty "easy to listen to", that for me is an obvious must... Don't know why some folks would like to listen to something they have to try to like.
Grey Man Well, I bet you’ve done that yourself. It’s just part of the growth process. Is there nothing that you learned to like and even love that you first almost rejected? I certainly have. I first disliked beer for instance.
YOU ARE JUST NOT READY FOR THE MESSAGE STRAVINSKI WAS PROJECTING ABOUT OUR ANCIENT HERITAGE SOME THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO FROM WHICH WE CAME. KEEP LISTENING AND YOU MAY DISCOVER WHAT THE FRENCH FAILED TO COMPREHEND UPON THEIR FIRST LISTENING.
In a minority, but I would have to agree with you. This work is basically a bad imitation of Glazunov's Fifth Symphony, with bits of Tchaikovsky thrown in here and there. Glazunov himself claimed, that of all his pupils at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, Stravinsky had the worst ear.
This is a fact: Stravinsky was a great composer whose works have received 100s if not 1000s of recordings and are performed live the world over. As I type, it is certain that some orchestra is either rehearsing or playing one of his works and thousands of instrumentalists are practicing his music. This is also a fact: no one who cares about music knows who you are, and in 150 years no one will even remember your name, not even your grandchildren, if you produce any. Welcome back to grim reality. BTW, much as I love Glazunov (and I do), he was not as great a composer as Stravinsky was, and his works receive less than a tenth of the reputation and attention of Stravinsky's today.
The only grim reality is that many of us - I have encountered far too many - take their opinions of music second hand - what is "considered to be" - general opinion, rather than formulating an opinion for oneself by extensive experience in listening. I have lived a long time, listened to all varieties of music, and formed my own opinions, which by the way, let me remind you, everyone including yourself is free to do likewise. There are no absolutes in these matters - one has to do one's own listening and then decide, and not pay to much attention to what "everybody says," or what you read about in history books or get from music appreciation courses. If someone tells me that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is one of the greatest works ever written, I have to listen to it and find this out for myself. A lot of these misconceptions arise from the limited curriculums one receives in these music learning institutions. An example, yes, with Stravinsky - take any young conducting student in any such music institution, and note that he/she will do a bang up job conducting any of the Big Three ballets of Stravinsky, but hand that student a work by Chadwick or Foote, by Elgar or Delius, by d'Indy or Faure, by Dohnanyi or Weiner, by Svendsen or Halvorsen, by Sibelius or Nielsen, and yes, by Glazunov - and watch them flounder, without a clue as to what is necessary to effectively bring such a piece by such a composer across - and I could mention other names and so could you, I'm certain. What you describe is symptomatic of what kids in this learning experience are exposed to and who have no initiative or inclination to explore on their own and formulate their own opinions. No, my friend - there mere fact of the multiplicity of Stravinsky recordings or performances tells me nothing about any objective greatness. It all comes down to what we ourselves bring to it. A piece widely considered to be a landmark in music, greatly innovative and forward looking, might utterly revolt us while at the same time another piece that is solidly on the beaten track and highly derivative might move us to our very roots. One simply cannot say that something is great or is not great by second hand opinion - one must find out for oneself if it meets our individual needs or if we respond to it. I could go on and on with this, but hopefully have made my point.
Your implication seems to be that Stravinsky is admired because of some sort of rote dogma. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But never mind. I'm not terribly interested in "debating" people on their gobbledygook theses. I do confess to being fascinated that you dare lecture me about subjectivity of opinion when, in reply to a post that literally said "This is a fact: Stravinsky was never a great composer" you wrote "I would have to agree with you". You really need to keep your stories straight. There are many ways of judging "greatness". Renown, though obviously not an infallible guide, is obviously more reliable than "what alger3041 says and believes" derived from his "long life" of "listening to all varieties of music". As to young conducting students, I daresay one faced with the scores to, say, Stravinsky's Abraham and Isaac and Elgar's Cockaigne overture would have a far easier time with Cockaigne. Your understanding of music and the challenges it presents is millimeter-deep.
I'm really and truly sorry that what I have expounded is making you profoundly uncomfortable, but your resolute non-acceptance of it concerns me not in the least. Renown? How does a composer receive such? Quality is no guarantee of greatness, nor is renown any guarantee of quality. (gobbledygook to you? - sorry if you miss my point). As far as forming my opinions from listening life long to a great variety of music, I hardly claim to be unique in that regard, and it's within anyone's realm if they are interested. This is how we form our opinions, by sheer personal experience, and not by what the next one tells us or what we read. We have to experience music for ourselves to properly form an opinion. Again, renown. perhaps the composer had the right connections. Yes, I did agree with someone regarding Stravinsky not being that great a composer, I'm entitled to my own opinion (and you yours); only don't become defensive and tell others that they don't know what they're talking about if you don['t happen to agree. It is not my problem that you can't accept what I [point out and dismiss it as nonsense. I can only suggest to you that you do a little more listening of your own and not be so ready to accept what the next one says - even me. YOU have to be the one to form your own opinion - you can agree or disagree with the next one, but this next one still has a right to his/her opinions.
In primo piano SINFONIA n.1 ( 1905 /7 ) (revisione 1914) )@jrtkjdrkjy9567 7 anni fa 0:49 1st movement Allegro moderato 13:05 2nd movement Scherzo: Allegretto 19:57 3rd movement Largo 35:42 Finale Allegro molto
0:49 1st movement
13:05 2nd movement
19:57 3rd movement
35:42 Finale
I can understand that Stravinsky had a talent for many aspects of music.
You can definitely feel the heritage of the great romantic Russian composers in this piece
it is a great symphony regardless
38:55 this out of context felt so Stravinsky though
So wonderful to listen to this. So many little teeny hints of things to come. As a composer I feel such a strong connection and appreciate Stravinsky (often accused of being Moderninsky) as one that took us on a journey forward, yet as the years went by connected and respected the history of western art music. Igor is still one of my most favorite 20th Century composers. I didn't love everything he did, but neither did I of the Beatles, John Lennon. They shared a journey and I'm grateful to have been in attendance.
Can't imagine it was composed by Stravinsky!!!
Que tal essas joias de musicas voltarem a ser tocadas no rádio e televisão mais frequente
This piece always make me happy. Maybe the brightest lights of the juvenile spirit of Stravinsky is craved in it. And also the georgian musicians are heckin' sexy.
Un'altra perla di Stravinsky, non come La Sagra della Primavera .
Excelente interpretación y dirección, gracias por subir éste video.
¿Podrías agregar más información sobre la obra? Desconocía ésta tan hermosa pieza de Igor.
Saludos desde Argentina.
music.......finally I 've found you...!!!)
Stravinsky's Christmas symphony :)
2nd movement is wonderfully playful.
dificil entender porque este video tan magnifico tiene tan pocos likes
Porque la humanidad se va a la mierda
Excellent!
Igor Fiodorovitch Stravinsky (en russe : Игорь Фёдорович Стравинский), né le 17 juin 1882 à Oranienbaum en Russie et mort le 6 avril 1971 à New York aux États-Unis, est un compositeur, chef d'orchestre et pianiste russe (naturalisé français en 1934, puis américain en 1945) de musique moderne, considéré comme l'un des compositeurs les plus influents du xxe siècle.
L'œuvre de Stravinsky s'étend sur près de soixante-dix années. Elle se caractérise par sa grande diversité de styles. Le compositeur accède à la célébrité par la création de trois ballets dont il compose la musique pour les Ballets russes de Diaghilev : L'Oiseau de feu (1910), Petrouchka (1911) et son œuvre maîtresse Le Sacre du printemps (1913) qui ont eu une influence considérable sur la façon d'aborder le rythme en musique classique. Dans les années 1920, sa production musicale prend un virage néoclassique et renoue avec des formes traditionnelles (concerto grosso, fugue et symphonie). Dans les années 1950, enfin, Igor Stravinsky explore les possibilités de la musique sérielle.
Biographie
Feodor Stravinski dans l'opéra Roussalka d'Alexandre Dargomyjski.
Igor Stravinsky est né le 17 juin 1882 à Oranienbaum (actuellement Lomonossov) en Russie, où ses parents se trouvaient en vacances, mais il passe toute son enfance au 66 Krioukov Kanal, à Saint-Pétersbourg, où la famille Strawiński réside. Son père, Feodor Stravinski est une basse chantant au théâtre Mariinsky.
Igor Stravinsky est le troisième d'une famille de quatre enfants. Les parents Stravinsky sont sévères et les rapports qu'il a avec ses deux frères aînés sont également froids : « Il ne me montrait de tendresse que lorsque j'étais malade1 », écrit-il à propos de son père dans Souvenirs et commentaires.
Malgré le fait que son père soit un chanteur de renom, le jeune Stravinsky n'a que très peu de contacts avec la musique classique dans sa jeunesse. En 1890, à huit ans, La Belle au bois dormant de Tchaïkovski et plus tard Une vie pour le tsar de Glinka restent ses deux seules expériences de concert importantes de son enfance2. Igor commence des leçons de piano à l'âge de neuf ans et « ne semble du reste pas montrer de dispositions particulières pour la musique3 ». Ce que le jeune enfant aimait le plus faire au piano, c'était improviser, malgré les nombreux reproches qu'on lui faisait. « Ce travail continu d'improvisations n'était pas absolument stérile, car il contribuait d'une part à une meilleure connaissance du piano, et d'autre part faisait germer des idées musicales4 », écrit-il dans ses Chroniques de ma vie. À son premier professeur succédera Mme Khachperova, élève d'Anton Rubinstein, qui fait travailler à Stravinsky le répertoire classique et romantique d'une manière très autoritaire, allant même jusqu'à interdire totalement l'usage de la pédale.
Ses premiers essais de composition n'étant pas suffisamment satisfaisants, son père l'inscrit à la faculté de droit de Saint-Pétersbourg en 1901. Durant la même période, il prend des leçons d'harmonie et de contrepoint. Quoique l'étude de l'harmonie ne lui donne « aucune satisfaction5 », il s'exerce beaucoup au contrepoint pour son propre compte. Cependant, le décès de son père le 21 novembre 1902 lui enlève un poids considérable. Même s'il reste inscrit pendant quatre ans à l'université, il n'assiste au plus qu'à une cinquantaine de cours. Il passe maintenant ses soirées au théâtre Mariinski et aux concerts symphoniques de la Société impériale et fait d'autres essais de composition, dont le chant Nuages d'orage et un Scherzo pour piano.
Igor Stravinsky (à gauche) et Nikolaï Rimski-Korsakov (à la droite de Stravinsky sur la photo, à sa gauche en réalité) en 1908.
Le point tournant de l'éducation musicale de Stravinsky est sa rencontre avec Nikolaï Rimski-Korsakov pendant l'été 1902. « Je lui exposai mon désir de devenir compositeur et lui demandai son avis6. », raconte-t-il. Le célèbre compositeur, lui déconseillant le Conservatoire, lui dit qu'il serait prêt à lui enseigner une fois qu'il aurait acquis les notions élémentaires d'harmonie et de contrepoint. C'est l'été suivant que Rimski-Korsakov commence à lui donner des leçons, après avoir entendu sa Sonate pour piano en fa dièse mineur. Ces enseignements, qui continuèrent jusqu'à la mort de Rimski-Korsakov, se sont principalement centrés sur l'art de l'orchestration et des formes classiques.
« Il me donnait à orchestrer des pages de la partition de piano d'un nouvel opéra qu'il venait d'achever. Quand j'avais orchestré un fragment, il me montrait son instrumentation personnelle du même morceau. Je devais confronter les deux et c'est encore moi qui devais lui expliquer pourquoi lui l'avait orchestré autrement. Dans le cas où je n'y arrivais pas, c'est lui qui me l'expliquait7. »
Igor Stravinsky épouse en 1906 sa cousine Catherine Gavrilovna Nosenko qui lui donnera quatre enfants : Fiodor (dit Théodore) en 1907, Ludmila en 1908, Sviatoslav (dit Soulima) en 1910 et Milena (dite Milène) en 1914.
La première œuvre composée par Stravinsky lors de son apprentissage avec Rimski-Korsakov est la Symphonie en mi bémol, en 1907. Suivront le Scherzo fantastique et Feu d'artifice, celui-ci interrompu à l'annonce de la mort de son maître le 21 juin 1908. Stravinsky compose alors un Chant funèbre à sa mémoire, œuvre perdue durant la Révolution russe et retrouvée en 2015 8. La création du Feu d'artifice, le 6 février 1909, est décisive pour la carrière du compositeur, car Serge de Diaghilev est présent.
greatest symphony of all time
Escuta con o coração
This is a tricky symphony to play: Stravinsky's scoring has lots of unisons and octaves that leave no room for error. At Maestro Gersamia's flexible and often expanded tempi, it becomes especially tough, evident at times here. Compare these tempi to Pletnev's, especially the slower section in the Scherzo and in the whole of the Largo. I'm a little torn: I'm not sure the material--which is derivative but interesting (and fun to play!)--supports the expansive reading; but it is intriguing to hear this take on a marvelous piece. Thanks!
sanam orkestrantebs instrumentebi ar eqnebat ...aseti uxarisxo da ashlili jgeradoba iqneba sul .... dzaan samwuxaroaa
Efectivamente, una obra bastante extraña para el estilo de Stravinski...
¿Una reverencia con el sombrero de Tchaikovsky?...
Fue una obra de sus anos estudientes.
here's a concert hall with wood in it, a lesson toronto ontario canada can learn
Is there a piano reduction of this symphony?
Yes, For Piano 4 Hands (Zhilyayev), look for it in IMSLP.
See - at 0:50, a man in the audience is talking on his mobile. Some people in the row in front notice and aren't too pleased.
Composed what year..? Performed what year..?....
What year? Pre WW, I think .
1905 while still a student of Rimsky Korsikov he was a teenager
Stravinsky, by my taste and enjoyment, was one of the most interesting and unique composers of his time. Much of the unwashed public has no taste for good composition such as the preceding comments reveal.
love the 2nd mvmt.
Feeling a tad superior, what?
28:57
00:58 Vladimir Putin lmao
StrAvinks when he was not yet Stravinsky
Bts brought me here
Why?
BOTH STRAVINSKI AND FRANZ LISZT WROTE THEIR EARLIEST WORKS IN AN OUTDATED STYLE OF IMMATURITY AND CONVENTION. THANKFULLY THEY BOTH DEVELOPED INTO THE WONDERGUL CONTRIBUTION WHICH THEY MADE TO MUSICAL ADVANCEMENT AND SOPHISTACATION.
SOME PEOPLE, LAMENTABLY, ARE STILL TRAPED IN THE PAST WHERE THEY ARE IN THE SAFE ZONE OF NOT BEING CHALLENGED TO GROW AND EXPLORE NEW HORIZONS.
What is a "great" composer anyway? And who cares? Not Stravinsky. He was too great.
If Stravinsky would have kept writing in this vein while writing the Firebird or Rite of Spring, his reception among the public would have been more welcome. It seems that his appeal was more to modernists and acadamia. Sorry, folks, but he loses me at Rite of Spring. Just an awful, boring and dissonant piece. No wonder there was a riot and fist fights at the Rite's premiere in 1913.
Yep
Pipestud3 CorncobPuffer You will probably never change your opinion but more listening and more exposure to more “modern” techniques would help. The Rite is dissonant but also rich, colorful, exciting, mysterious and bewilderingly complex. More listening helps. Like scotch, or certain foods, it’s an acquired taste. At any rate, I love Stravinsky and the Rite. You might like Apollo or the symphony in C. Who knows?
@@charlesmchugh8811 Yup, my favorite work in the XXth century, and pretty "easy to listen to", that for me is an obvious must... Don't know why some folks would like to listen to something they have to try to like.
Grey Man Well, I bet you’ve done that yourself. It’s just part of the growth process. Is there nothing that you learned to like and even love that you first almost rejected? I certainly have. I first disliked beer for instance.
YOU ARE JUST NOT READY FOR THE MESSAGE STRAVINSKI WAS PROJECTING ABOUT OUR ANCIENT HERITAGE SOME THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO FROM WHICH WE CAME.
KEEP LISTENING AND YOU MAY DISCOVER WHAT THE FRENCH FAILED TO COMPREHEND UPON THEIR FIRST LISTENING.
I don't like the third movement.
This is a fact: Stravinsky was never a great composer...
In a minority, but I would have to agree with you. This work is basically a bad imitation of Glazunov's Fifth Symphony, with bits of Tchaikovsky thrown in here and there. Glazunov himself claimed, that of all his pupils at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, Stravinsky had the worst ear.
This is a fact: Stravinsky was a great composer whose works have received 100s if not 1000s of recordings and are performed live the world over. As I type, it is certain that some orchestra is either rehearsing or playing one of his works and thousands of instrumentalists are practicing his music.
This is also a fact: no one who cares about music knows who you are, and in 150 years no one will even remember your name, not even your grandchildren, if you produce any.
Welcome back to grim reality.
BTW, much as I love Glazunov (and I do), he was not as great a composer as Stravinsky was, and his works receive less than a tenth of the reputation and attention of Stravinsky's today.
The only grim reality is that many of us - I have encountered far too many - take their opinions of music second hand - what is "considered to be" - general opinion, rather than formulating an opinion for oneself by extensive experience in listening. I have lived a long time, listened to all varieties of music, and formed my own opinions, which by the way, let me remind you, everyone including yourself is free to do likewise. There are no absolutes in these matters - one has to do one's own listening and then decide, and not pay to much attention to what "everybody says," or what you read about in history books or get from music appreciation courses. If someone tells me that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is one of the greatest works ever written, I have to listen to it and find this out for myself. A lot of these misconceptions arise from the limited curriculums one receives in these music learning institutions. An example, yes, with Stravinsky - take any young conducting student in any such music institution, and note that he/she will do a bang up job conducting any of the Big Three ballets of Stravinsky, but hand that student a work by Chadwick or Foote, by Elgar or Delius, by d'Indy or Faure, by Dohnanyi or Weiner, by Svendsen or Halvorsen, by Sibelius or Nielsen, and yes, by Glazunov - and watch them flounder, without a clue as to what is necessary to effectively bring such a piece by such a composer across - and I could mention other names and so could you, I'm certain. What you describe is symptomatic of what kids in this learning experience are exposed to and who have no initiative or inclination to explore on their own and formulate their own opinions. No, my friend - there mere fact of the multiplicity of Stravinsky recordings or performances tells me nothing about any objective greatness. It all comes down to what we ourselves bring to it. A piece widely considered to be a landmark in music, greatly innovative and forward looking, might utterly revolt us while at the same time another piece that is solidly on the beaten track and highly derivative might move us to our very roots. One simply cannot say that something is great or is not great by second hand opinion - one must find out for oneself if it meets our individual needs or if we respond to it. I could go on and on with this, but hopefully have made my point.
Your implication seems to be that Stravinsky is admired because of some sort of rote dogma. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But never mind. I'm not terribly interested in "debating" people on their gobbledygook theses.
I do confess to being fascinated that you dare lecture me about subjectivity of opinion when, in reply to a post that literally said "This is a fact: Stravinsky was never a great composer" you wrote "I would have to agree with you". You really need to keep your stories straight.
There are many ways of judging "greatness". Renown, though obviously not an infallible guide, is obviously more reliable than "what alger3041 says and believes" derived from his "long life" of "listening to all varieties of music".
As to young conducting students, I daresay one faced with the scores to, say, Stravinsky's Abraham and Isaac and Elgar's Cockaigne overture would have a far easier time with Cockaigne. Your understanding of music and the challenges it presents is millimeter-deep.
I'm really and truly sorry that what I have expounded is making you profoundly uncomfortable, but your resolute non-acceptance of it concerns me not in the least. Renown? How does a composer receive such? Quality is no guarantee of greatness, nor is renown any guarantee of quality. (gobbledygook to you? - sorry if you miss my point). As far as forming my opinions from listening life long to a great variety of music, I hardly claim to be unique in that regard, and it's within anyone's realm if they are interested. This is how we form our opinions, by sheer personal experience, and not by what the next one tells us or what we read. We have to experience music for ourselves to properly form an opinion. Again, renown. perhaps the composer had the right connections. Yes, I did agree with someone regarding Stravinsky not being that great a composer, I'm entitled to my own opinion (and you yours); only don't become defensive and tell others that they don't know what they're talking about if you don['t happen to agree. It is not my problem that you can't accept what I [point out and dismiss it as nonsense. I can only suggest to you that you do a little more listening of your own and not be so ready to accept what the next one says - even me. YOU have to be the one to form your own opinion - you can agree or disagree with the next one, but this next one still has a right to his/her opinions.
In primo piano
SINFONIA n.1 ( 1905 /7 )
(revisione 1914)
)@jrtkjdrkjy9567
7 anni fa
0:49 1st movement Allegro moderato
13:05 2nd movement Scherzo: Allegretto
19:57 3rd movement Largo
35:42 Finale Allegro molto