Rite of Spring

[shostakovich]

It seems Stravinsky's Rite is pretty unpopular. I can understand that. When I tutored my classmates, way back in college days, I always had music going. One time the Rite was playing. My friends had managed to ignore most of part I. But when the drum roll and chaotic eruption came at the end of part I, it cleared the room.<P> It's definitely not love at first hearing with that piece. I had to push myself through it many times before being able to feel the thrill of it. The Rimskian Firebird (1910) and quirky Petrushka (1911) that preceded Rite (1913), all ballets for Diaghilev's Ballets Russes, were no preparation for the explosion that was Rite of Spring. It has no precedent. It came out of Stravinsky's brain like the relativity theories came from Einstein (at about the same, I think), from nowhere. And there is still NOTHING else like it. It came from nowhere, and it led nowhere. A touch of that primitivism appears in Symphony in 3 movements and more in Les Noces, but after 1913 Stravinsky must have been gun shy because of the storm of controversy it brought. <P>It appears totally unmusical, devoid of melody, formless, hamonically unstable (multiple tonalities), rhythmically impossible (multiple rhythms). I'm reminded of Toscanini's comment about Sibelius's 7th: "I look at score. I see no music in it. You have to show me where is music". Yet, to me, it's as fresh now as it was in 1913. That's the amazing thing about it. It doesn't get old. I expect there will be in 2013 a renewal of interest in that monumental work. It might take a dozen years if you want to love it. On the other hand, it's not worth losing your sanity trying. <P>If you want to approach it with pictures, get the old Fantasia. It accompanies (appropriately) the creation through the age of dinosaurs. The score is somehat butchered, but that hardly matters. It fits. There's a story about Disney calling Stravinsky to ask permission to use Rite in Fantasia. While Stravinsky (a good business man) paused to consider the implications, Disney (a better business man) reminded him that the US and USSR had no copyright agreement, and he would use it anyway. Under those circumstances, Stravinsky gave his permission. Later, when Stravinsky saw the film, and was shocked at the creation usage (his own idea had been scenes of ancient Russia), he said in mock bewilderment: "Well, that must have been what I meant in the first place".<BR>Shos

[Flowerboy]

Ive seen this work mentioned in many posts. Yet i have never heard this work. I am now curious to hear it. btw, ive never heard any stravinsky before. Do you recommend this piece as a introductory to Stravinsky? Or do you recommend i listen to something else by him first? thanx.<P>Flowerboy<BR>

[~Leslie]

Flowerboy, I would recommend History of the Soldier.

[shostakovich]

Thanks, Leslie for suggesting that. I haven't heard it in years. It was your post on Nutcracker that got me to look at the video, and you've done it again.<BR>Shos

[shostakovich]

Hi Brandon and Leslie. I finally got around to listening to the Soldier's Story. My recording is 50+ min. long, and contains all the narration, etc. There are long passages without music. Maybe the short suite, with likely no voices, would be the better choice.<P>The following comes from a book of conversations between Stravinsky and Robert Craft. "My choice of instruments was influenced by a very important event in my life at that time, the discovery of American jazz." (The work was written in 1918.) "My knowledge of jazz was derived exclusively from copies of sheet music, and as I had never actually heard any of the music performed, I borrowed its rhythmic style not as played, but as written. I COULD imagine jazz sound, however, so I liked to think. Jazz meant, in any case, a wholly new sound in music, and Histoire marks my final break with the Russian orchestral school in which I had been fostered."

[~Leslie]

SHOS! THIS IS A FULL BLOWN CASE OF SYNCHRONICITY!!!!<P>I SWEAR, I DID NOT KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!<P>Thanks Shos, you made my day. ~

[BenG]

I remember playing Stravinsky's Petrouchka a lot when I was in high school. Used to drive my little brother nuts. He preferred the Beatles. In college I bought the "Rite of Spring." I didn't find it that difficult perhaps because I was already used to his style and musical language. I liked the shifting rhythms and meter changes. After listening to it for over 20 years now I realize it was perhaps the first piece of music that epitomized the 20th century. It seemed to preview and somehow herald the terrible wars and upheaval to come. One gets a sense of cubism listening to it. The sense of moral relativism. It was an Einsteinium point of view. Darwinism was the acid that cut through all philosophies. Stravinsky's music was also a powerful acid that cut through all musical convention at the time. All angles were taken into consideration. One can almost hear the machine age...the assembly line working. The tanks and the airplanes overrunning countries. A sense that change and technology are beyond our grasp and control. The ticking clock patterns evoke a sense that time has speeded up and heighten the sense of anxiety that one gets when certain foundations are dislodged. I could go on and on (and I probably already have , but I do not find this work difficult at all. I would recommend it to any first time Stravinsky listener without hesitation. In fact, it epitomizes his work before he got bogged down in theory later in life. I think it is his most accessable work. It IS melodic and tuneful...just not in the 19th century interpretation. If one can get away from seeing Disney dinosaurs or away from the ballet program itself, then more profound meanings can be heard, IMHO.<P>Ben

[shostakovich]

Hi Ben. You've certainly gotten a maximum out of Rite. You also put a lot of your unique insight into it. One of the things that impresses me about it is that it doesn't get stale. It will remain an exciting listen as long as it's played. Do you have any other off-the-beaten-path favorites? Or any unusual preferred composers?<BR>Shos

[BenG]

Shostakovich:<BR>Glad to see my 'review' of the 'Rite' wasn't off-putting. I tend to go overboard sometimes...but that's only because I find the music so compelling.<P>I find myself going into a certain mode where I will only listen to one composer for days--even weeks on end. For example, last year it was Brahms. I read a biography about him and bought at least a dozen CDs...and listened to his music day after day after day. Then suddenly I will find something else that catches my ear...mostly stuff I hear on the radio. Classical music contains so many rich veins and I find myself wanting to mine each one thoroughly. There are many composers that I have yet to enjoy. That's the great thing about classical music--there's more than a lifetime of listening available. I'm sure you have more 'undiscovered' gems than me and I'm always interesting in reading about them. The latest composer I 'discovered' is a man named Henryk Wieniawski. If you've never heard his 'Légend,' opus 17, I highly recommend it.<P>Best regards and happy listening!<BR>Ben

[treebeau]

Ah Wieniawski !!<P>Having played violin many years ago I love to listen to violin showpieces. The Concert Polonaise (in D, I think) is wonderful, but I don't have any recordings of it. Anyone have one they could recommend ?<P>Regards,<BR>Tim B.<BR>

[Brahmsian]

Trying to like the Rite of Spring is an interesting topic. This piece of music, as monumental as it is, is ridiculous. I understand why Saint-Saens walked out of the performance. It is a mathematical excersise, nothing more. True good symphonic music always exists with the conservatives(Brahms, Beethoven, Sibelius)

[BenG]

I didn't know Saint-Saens walked out of the performance, but if you listen to anything Saint-Saens wrote and then the 'Rite' it's easy to understand why. Still, to say it is a mere mathmatical exercise is ludicrous. It is a wonderful new dimension of music. Don't get locked into so called 'conservative' viewpoints--you'll miss a lot of listening fun! Berlioz's "Symphony Fantastique" was quite unconventional in its day. Some critics said it wasn't music at all but a bunch of braying donkeys. It is not 'conservative' music but it is still glorious. Give new music a chance--don't close your mind!<P>BTW, Sibelius did write some great symphonies--particularly his 5th.<BR>

[Brahmsian]

you are right that i shouldn't classify it as a mere mathamatical excersise. However, the greatest music in history was written with structure and rules. Breaking completley free of all rules doesn't gain you anything. IT is a thing called discipline. As for being narrow-minded, I believe is far better to be narrow-minded then too open minded. And another thing, listen to Berlioz and listen to The Rite. Wich sounds more musical?

[BenG]

I think the Rite is VERY musical. Yes there are a lot of wonderful meter changes and unusual rhythms. But listen to "March to the Scaffold." Doesn't it remind you of Stravinsky a bit? Bach would've walked out of a Berlioz performance.<BR>Perhaps I shouldn't compare music with visual art, but Berlioz' music could be equated with paintings by Delacroix (a notorious Romantic era rule breaker) and Stravinsky could be compared with Picasso when the latter was in his Cubist period. Picasso broke rules in order to create a new way of viewing 'reality.' He broke down reality and reconstructed it--forcing us to see reality in a new and memorable way. Stravinksy reconstucted musical reality in a manner that was 'unheard' of in its time. The works by Igor and Pablo are as valid, interesting and emotionally engaging as anything created in the 19th Century. But it's comparing apples and oranges. Of course a 19th-Century composer would walk out on the Rite. The 20th Century would be a tonic much too powerful and inexplicable to be swallowed out of context.<BR>Remember, Beethoven also broke a lot of rules. He was the first to 'walk out' on nobility when they began talking during performances. He introduced new instruments to the orchestra and on and on. Even Beethoven was a rule breaker in his day. -Ben

[Brahmsian]

Anyone can break rules, but to do so and still sound good is the true measure of success. The Rite still raises eyebrows, but Beethoven was immortalized almost immedialtely after his death. Stravinksy (thank god) has still to achieve this status.

[serge urtizberea]

Stravinsky has always seemed to be a bit of a conundrum. The type of music style he composed in was, to my ears, far more for the dissonant effect than for any true expression of harmony or musicality. Technically, Stravinsky was a brilliant innovator, but his innovations seemed penned to unnerve and upset the listeners. <P>Of course, not having cottoned to his music, and therefore not having listened to very much of it, I may simply be deeply under-informed.<p>[This message has been edited by serge urtizberea (edited 03-01-2001).]

[~Leslie]

This is how I see Rite of Spring:<P>It took alot of audacity to write this piece.Even visually, the score itself is wild.<BR>To me it is polyrhythmic, in yr face, dissonant, violent, sensual, primal, feral, haunting, at times it feels "asymetrical", in striking contrast with ANYTHING I can think of pre-Beethovenian. <P>Yet, it had to be done, if not Stravinsky, someone else would have eventually done something simular. It is a strangely cohesive part of the evolution of music. Like a weirdly distorted dream, maybe even a drug induced one. <P>Picasso or Dali is a good analogy. I think Dali, yes, or whoever it was that painted those elonged faces in screaming agony. <P>~#:^O

[BenG]

Nicely put, Leslie. The artist you're alluding to may be Edvard Munch. "The Scream."