The Rite of Spring?

What do you all think of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? From a musical and compositional perspective, do you consider it a "masterpiece" (what is its compositional value)? Should it set a certain standard, be a certain model for certain modern styles, such as mood music, or program music (should some composers aspire to write something as "great" as...)? What do you think was its influence on the world of music, and its evolution up to the present day?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, I'm just curious. (I'll post my opinion tomorrow morning, I'm logging off for tonight :) )

What do you all think of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? From a musical and compositional perspective, do you consider it a "masterpiece" (what is its compositional value)? Should it set a certain standard, be a certain model for certain modern styles, such as mood music, or program music (should some composers aspire to write something as "great" as...)? What do you think was its influence on the world of music, and its evolution up to the present day?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, I'm just curious. (I'll post my opinion tomorrow morning, I'm logging off for tonight :) )

I think it set the standard for modern music. What it did was show music in a totally different light than the classical Westernized European view. It depicted pagan tribes in Russia and did a darned good job of it too. You feel uncomfortable yet transfixed by the music because the ceremony it depicts, the sacrifice of a young girl by dance, is quite horrifying. Anyone could slit one's throat, but to actually force the girl to dance herself to death is terrible! It truly is "modern" music being that it was about something none of us wanted to acknowledge. (Naturally the historical events of the 20th century made this idea of exploiting the uncomfortable reach its peak in the modern era.) It revolutionized how composers (and audiences) looked at classical music. Whether it was for the better we will never know, but the fact that it had such a profound influence should hold it in high esteem regardless.

It is a masterpiece of the 20th century and like Tokkemon said, it set the standard of modern music. And not only is the music an important piece of early 20th century music, but the ballet itself that the music was written for is an important work in the dance world.

Whether or not a composer should go for that aesthetic or not or aspire to that level is a matter of personal taste and ability. But every composers should at least study the music and see what Stravinsky did.

Very nice insight from you all. I personally think the piece represents a standard, and the beginning of what could be considered as an "unorganized" dissonant style. All stylistic considerations aside (the social implications that Tokkemon stated are undeniable), I think the ballet is a masterwork in the sphere of mood-music and the like, and should be a kind of "model" for a specific class of works that don't follow the stricter and more organized aesthetic that Schoenberg set up (most notably the 12-tone system). I don't deny that the Rite (ballet and music) changed music and had a profound influence, but I tend to nudge credit for the end of tonality and the start of truly "modern" music in Schoenberg's direction, while I think Stravinsky sought rather to render audiences uncomfortable, and depict the horrifying and brutal events in the ballet by being as outrageous as he could (by the time's standards), unlike the former, which actually sought to develop a non-tonal, dissonant system, with its own set of rules and principles, to be followed and used on a consistent basis up to, and past modern day. (I hope this all makes sense, I typed it pretty quickly.)

Though Paranoid you think this is the start of unorganized dissonant style I beg to differ. The Rite of Spring is FILLED with folkloric music (either borrowed or heavy redone) from Igor's homeland. Many parts to me are quite tuneful. The level is dissonance is great AT TIMES - but really how much more so than say Scraibin's piano works toward the end of his life. And it is quite organized the music. Though a process of interlaying and fragmentation of ALL aspects of his material (in fact to a degree really not matched except by Schoenberg in his Pierrot) the sound material he was able to create a uniquely moving mosaic of tightly interweaving sound tableaus.

Comparing Stravinsky's Rite period to this time around Schoenberg is akin to comparing Bach and Handel (Schoenberg being more of the Bach camp, Stravinsky the Handel camp if you were to transplant their music and the styles to the High Baroque). They were part of a trend rather than "founding" anything. In fact I'd consider much of early 20th century really the final fruits of Romanticism - I mean come on talk about the "program music" in both Schoenberg's Pierrot and Stravinsky's Rite!

Both pieces are important for the reactions AGAINST it rather than those who embraced them a bit too eagerly.

Though Paranoid you think this is the start of unorganized dissonant style I beg to differ. The Rite of Spring is FILLED with folkloric music (either borrowed or heavy redone) from Igor's homeland. Many parts to me are quite tuneful. The level is dissonance is great AT TIMES - but really how much more so than say Scraibin's piano works toward the end of his life. And it is quite organized the music. Though a process of interlaying and fragmentation of ALL aspects of his material (in fact to a degree really not matched except by Schoenberg in his Pierrot) the sound material he was able to create a uniquely moving mosaic of tightly interweaving sound tableaus.

Comparing Stravinsky's Rite period to this time around Schoenberg is akin to comparing Bach and Handel (Schoenberg being more of the Bach camp, Stravinsky the Handel camp if you were to transplant their music and the styles to the High Baroque). They were part of a trend rather than "founding" anything. In fact I'd consider much of early 20th century really the final fruits of Romanticism - I mean come on talk about the "program music" in both Schoenberg's Pierrot and Stravinsky's Rite!

Both pieces are important for the reactions AGAINST it rather than those who embraced them a bit too eagerly.

I'm not saying Stravinsky's piece and Scriabin's works are unorganized from a musical standpoint, simply that I consider Schoenberg to be more the precursor of the 12-tone system or viewpoint, and Stravinsky, Scriabin, and similar early 20th-century composers gave way to some of the "free" atonal trends we have today. Although music during that period was as all over the place as it could be... it would be impossible to actually define exactly what each composer wrote, what trends he followed and set, etc. Over about 20 - 30 years, I think music changed so much that to identify one work, or one person, as the underlying cause or trend-setter of something would be just wrong (or would result in some kind of forum-wide flame war :blink: .) In any case, it's clear the Rite had a huge impact on music (and on audiences as well), but after sitting here and thinking about it a bit, late and post-romanticism were so diverse and divergent within themselves that I couldn't really pin anything on anyone in specific. Maybe a few books on the subject would help :happy:

What do you all think of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? From a musical and compositional perspective, do you consider it a "masterpiece" (what is its compositional value)? Should it set a certain standard, be a certain model for certain modern styles, such as mood music, or program music (should some composers aspire to write something as "great" as...)? What do you think was its influence on the world of music, and its evolution up to the present day?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, I'm just curious. (I'll post my opinion tomorrow morning, I'm logging off for tonight :) )

I think the Rite is brilliant. It's a masterpiece of 20th century lit. largely for it's orchestration (how long might it have been before the bassoon range was expanded if not for Stravinsky?), complex polyrhythms, and effective depiction of some of the darker aspects of the human condition. I don't think it should be a model for a certain style, unless you call it an exemplary work from Stravinsky's Ballets Russe period. I think composers should try to top their own works rather than the works of other composers.

There's so much to talk about in relation to its influence on the world of music. I think one of the most interesting things is that it foreshadowed and almost made it ok to depict the coming trend of anxiety, fear, and the less uplifting aspects of human nature (especially murder) via atonal music. Of course there were works of angst that broke free of tonality before the Great War, like Schoenberg's Book of Hanging Gardens, but after the war works like Erwartung (written before the war but not premiered until much later) and Wozzeck began popping up all over the place. Human nature could be ugly, and the war showed it, so naturally a depiction of ugliness made its way into post-war music. Truth was no longer associated with beauty, and Stravinsky was just slightly ahead of his time in showing it. You can probably talk about the Rite in terms of de-Germanization and the reactions against Austro-German maximalism in France, or you can bring in commercialism/transcendental maximalism and talk about how Stravinsky and composers that followed in his footsteps sought to write bigger and more audacious pieces in order to top previous financial successes (like the Firebird and Petrushka in Stravinsky's case). Naturally the Rite "scandal" of dissonance that shocked its first audience doesn't hurt its place in history either. Maybe people should've seen where Stravinsky's ballet music was heading after Petrushka... It's like the Rite was the breaking point of musical expectations until Cage! No, that's going too far, but at the very least it further opened the floodgates of what music could be to a Western audience.

What do you all think of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? From a musical and compositional perspective, do you consider it a "masterpiece" (what is its compositional value)? Should it set a certain standard, be a certain model for certain modern styles, such as mood music, or program music (should some composers aspire to write something as "great" as...)? What do you think was its influence on the world of music, and its evolution up to the present day?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, I'm just curious. (I'll post my opinion tomorrow morning, I'm logging off for tonight :) )

I LOOOOOVE IT IT'S THE BEST PIECE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that answers that. Now, to your other questions, Masterpiece? Yes. Standard? Yes, it should be put under teaching music. It's a great thing to learn from. They could try, I guess to write something as great as it. I think the influence was where Stravinsky lived, Russia. It just sounds Russian. It has evolved into a piece that everyone knows, but nobody knows well enough. Sure they've heard it in movies and in "Fantasia" and such, but people just don't know anything about it. They think it's all in the dinosaurs and such.

ParanoidFreak: One thing to always keep in mind is the way musical performance and interpretation can effectively mold as how it is perceived, even in the long term.

Stravinsky, especially due to certain early works, got this impression of "raw wildness" in many performers going, so they went totally in this direction when performing his work, often ignoring the structural intricacies, the highly calculated aspects of his work. Schönberg, on the other hand (and even much more so Webern), was early on quickly labeled as a "theorist", a mathematically constructing composer, which resulted in the performers concentrating fully on just that: A clean, formally-oriented and accurate playing-style, sometimes almost "clinical".

It took decades for performers to figure out how wrong they had been by categorising those composers like that, probably mostly because until the late 20th century, research of performance practice was a rather rare thing and people often just played how they were taught to play a certain composer. It was also thanks to the development of historically oriented performance practice (Harnoncourt etc.) that people started to ask themselves similar question in regards to newer music, namely the music of the early 20th century and actually started to research its performance (by reading things the composers or their students wrote, etc.).

As it turned out, composers such as Schönberg and Webern were much more concerned with a direct agogic interpretation, focusing on "expression" (hence also the term expressionism…), and condemned those performers who just played their music as "structures". Likewise, people began to figure out that in the wild outbursts of pieces like the Rite, structural considerations played an important matter and that a performance who ignored these things would fall short of really bringing out the unique qualities of such a piece. And, to add yet another extreme of the same time, people finally figured out that the romantically "overblown" music of composers like Richard Strauss was only harmed if you performed it with a similar level of "romantic excess", extreme agogics, etc. - in this music, these things were already in the score, so in fact, the performance didn't -have- to add anything like that on its own and could much more concentrate on playing the music relatively drily and clearly.

Sadly, IMHO, many of these realisations haven't reached all performers yet, and even less so many listeners. Many performers still tend to "dumb down" a lot of music in the direction of certain stereotypes, destroying all the other aspects this music might have. And this naturally leads to similarly stereotypical impressions on the side of the audience.

And I tend to think that the 20th century is still the period that needs most work for the performers to delve into and research. These days, we can listen to tons of ensembles playing baroque music on an absolutely stunning level. 20th century music however is often played sloppily, without the same level of consideration, which obviously also harms the perception of that music. (Just consider how the focus on historical performance practice and the work performers in the last few decades put into displaying baroque music in a new light led to an increase in popularity of baroque music. Playing a baroque opera fifty years ago was a really rare thing. Nowadays, that's part of most operas' standard repertoires.) I could imagine a similar thing to still happen with a lot of 20th century music. (Especially post-WWII-music, which is still way less developed performance-wise than the early 20th century music, but that's a different topic, since we're all about Stravinsky here.)

ParanoidFreak: One thing to always keep in mind is the way musical performance and interpretation can effectively mold as how it is perceived, even in the long term.

Stravinsky, especially due to certain early works, got this impression of "raw wildness" in many performers going, so they went totally in this direction when performing his work, often ignoring the structural intricacies, the highly calculated aspects of his work. Schönberg, on the other hand (and even much more so Webern), was early on quickly labeled as a "theorist", a mathematically constructing composer, which resulted in the performers concentrating fully on just that: A clean, formally-oriented and accurate playing-style, sometimes almost "clinical".

It took decades for performers to figure out how wrong they had been by categorising those composers like that, probably mostly because until the late 20th century, research of performance practice was a rather rare thing and people often just played how they were taught to play a certain composer. It was also thanks to the development of historically oriented performance practice (Harnoncourt etc.) that people started to ask themselves similar question in regards to newer music, namely the music of the early 20th century and actually started to research its performance (by reading things the composers or their students wrote, etc.).

As it turned out, composers such as Schönberg and Webern were much more concerned with a direct agogic interpretation, focusing on "expression" (hence also the term expressionism…), and condemned those performers who just played their music as "structures". Likewise, people began to figure out that in the wild outbursts of pieces like the Rite, structural considerations played an important matter and that a performance who ignored these things would fall short of really bringing out the unique qualities of such a piece. And, to add yet another extreme of the same time, people finally figured out that the romantically "overblown" music of composers like Richard Strauss was only harmed if you performed it with a similar level of "romantic excess", extreme agogics, etc. - in this music, these things were already in the score, so in fact, the performance didn't -have- to add anything like that on its own and could much more concentrate on playing the music relatively drily and clearly.

Sadly, IMHO, many of these realisations haven't reached all performers yet, and even less so many listeners. Many performers still tend to "dumb down" a lot of music in the direction of certain stereotypes, destroying all the other aspects this music might have. And this naturally leads to similarly stereotypical impressions on the side of the audience.

And I tend to think that the 20th century is still the period that needs most work for the performers to delve into and research. These days, we can listen to tons of ensembles playing baroque music on an absolutely stunning level. 20th century music however is often played sloppily, without the same level of consideration, which obviously also harms the perception of that music. (Just consider how the focus on historical performance practice and the work performers in the last few decades put into displaying baroque music in a new light led to an increase in popularity of baroque music. Playing a baroque opera fifty years ago was a really rare thing. Nowadays, that's part of most operas' standard repertoires.) I could imagine a similar thing to still happen with a lot of 20th century music. (Especially post-WWII-music, which is still way less developed performance-wise than the early 20th century music, but that's a different topic, since we're all about Stravinsky here.)

Interesting. I don't usually try to stereotype pieces when I interpret them, but I think you just made me that more cautious to what I play and how I'm playing it. Do you have a particular interpretation/recording of the Rite of Spring you consider the best? I'm satisfied with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's recording, but then again I didn't go looking all that far :happy:

It's my favorite piece of classical music ever. I'm getting the opening bassoon solo tattooed down my back. It's the piece that made me want to be a composer.

That answer your question? ;)

It's my favorite piece of classical music ever. I'm getting the opening bassoon solo tattooed down my back. It's the piece that made me want to be a composer.

That answer your question? ;)

Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

There is no other piece I can think of that sums up the musical crisis at the start of the 20th century more than the Sacre. Even if much of the musical material just came from Stravinsky "noodling" at the piano, as is evident in some bits (for instance the Danse Sacrale, which is basically left-RIGHT! left-RIGHT-left-RIGHT! left-RIIIGHT-chordchordchord :P ) but that's an aspect of this crisis as well, if you think about it. Traditional melody and tonal-ish harmony were disappearing in favor of tone rows and dissonance. Basically, Stravinsky had found a point of balance between "how far can you go?" and compelling, dramatic music. The sad part is, that he had all but exhausted this particular idiom after the Sacre. In this half-hour, he provided enough ideas to last the composing world for decades, in rhythm, harmony, treatment of themes & melodies and orchestration.

(On a side note, I once read something about the text that was supposed to go with the bassoon solo:

I'm not an english horn!

I'm not an english horn!

This is too high for me,

I'm not an english horn!)

I had the privilege to play the Sacre a few months ago, with a student orchestra, in the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. I couldn't help but note that this is the only piece I know where even the sixth viola (me) has a solo at some point; exactly 29 notes which only I was allowed to play! Felt honoured by that. Playing the Sacre is an awesome experience, my advice to everyone is therefore: if you are ever offered to play it, DO NOT DECLINE THIS OFFER. No matter what instrument you play. All the 100+ parts are as interesting (and challenging) as a solo piece.

So, to sum it all up: "meh, seen better" :P

Well, I'm going to contrast virtually everyone here and say "Eh... Rite of Spring s'okay." Personally, while I do respect it for its historical significance (for reasons that many people have already cited) and the fact that it's orchestration is near Godly, I'm just pretty "meh" about it overall. Really, I think Rite of Spring enjoys the success it does because of one reason: It occupied a sort of compositional sweet spot; being harmonically, rhythmically, and conceptually advanced enough as to be considered revolutionary but drawing its basis around heavily diatonic and familiar folk-themes as to still have a sort of "pop" appeal to it.

Just a few quick points:

-I've never really found Rite of Spring "scary", "disturbing", or even that intense really (save one or two moments in the second act)

-Rite of Spring is nowhere near as complex or dissonant as people here are making it out to be. As far as harmony goes, it's largely derived from two keys being juxtaposed a tritone apart with using the octatonic mode as a sort of "organizer". There are a lot of times when the dissonance is created merely from having two diatonic voices in different keys playing over top of each other.

As far as rhythm goes, the piece is largely based on small, recurring rhythmic cells. Entire sections of music are built around three or four of these small cells by juxtaposition in different orders and expansion/contraction of these cells. Messiaen also identified how Stravinsky often would only use two cells: an A cell and a B cell. The A cell remaining constant while the B cell was subject to variation. He also did a lot with the very simple concept of "two-over-three". Basically, my point is, once you identify the small little building blocks Stravinsky is using, you realize that Rite of Spring is nowhere near as rhythmically complex as it appears. (For a more complex use of the same basic techniques, try Varese's Ameriques or Ionisation). In fact, a lot of Rite of Spring can actually be written in 4/4. I remember hearing a story once where an orchestra actually did do this for the finale; writing everything in 4/4. Stravinsky, who heard the performance, complimented them at the end, asking how they kept the rhythms so tight. They responded by telling him they just wrote needlessly complicated passages in what could pretty logically be kept in 4/4... Stravinsky's reaction was to throw a fit.

And also, I don't think a lot of people realize just how melodic Rite of Spring really is. A lot of sections are based on very simple, completely diatonic, modal folk-melodies. The introduction being the most blatant example but far from the only. There is actually a pretty admirable amount of economy in the material if anything.

-Not many people know this but Rite of Spring is actually a complete rip-off of John Williams' work. Rite of Spring was the result of Stravinsky listening to way too much of the original trilogy's soundtrack (which Stravinsky was reportedly a huge fan). Though, not the prequel trilogy as that objectively sucks balls. So Stravinsky was a hack on top of it all.

Well Tyler, you're saying that in the context of today when far greater things have been accomplished since Rite. Back in 1913, it was the most advanced music ever written, which gave it its considerable fame.

Well, I'm going to contrast virtually everyone here and say "Eh... Rite of Spring s'okay." Personally, while I do respect it for its historical significance (for reasons that many people have already cited) and the fact that it's orchestration is near Godly, I'm just pretty "meh" about it overall. Really, I think Rite of Spring enjoys the success it does because of one reason: It occupied a sort of compositional sweet spot; being harmonically, rhythmically, and conceptually advanced enough as to be considered revolutionary but drawing its basis around heavily diatonic and familiar folk-themes as to still have a sort of "pop" appeal to it.

Just a few quick points:

-I've never really found Rite of Spring "scary", "disturbing", or even that intense really (save one or two moments in the second act)

-Rite of Spring is nowhere near as complex or dissonant as people here are making it out to be. As far as harmony goes, it's largely derived from two keys being juxtaposed a tritone apart with using the octatonic mode as a sort of "organizer". There are a lot of times when the dissonance is created merely from having two diatonic voices in different keys playing over top of each other.

As far as rhythm goes, the piece is largely based on small, recurring rhythmic cells. Entire sections of music are built around three or four of these small cells by juxtaposition in different orders and expansion/contraction of these cells. Messiaen also identified how Stravinsky often would only use two cells: an A cell and a B cell. The A cell remaining constant while the B cell was subject to variation. He also did a lot with the very simple concept of "two-over-three". Basically, my point is, once you identify the small little building blocks Stravinsky is using, you realize that Rite of Spring is nowhere near as rhythmically complex as it appears. (For a more complex use of the same basic techniques, try Varese's Ameriques or Ionisation). In fact, a lot of Rite of Spring can actually be written in 4/4. I remember hearing a story once where an orchestra actually did do this for the finale; writing everything in 4/4. Stravinsky, who heard the performance, complimented them at the end, asking how they kept the rhythms so tight. They responded by telling him they just wrote needlessly complicated passages in what could pretty logically be kept in 4/4... Stravinsky's reaction was to throw a fit.

And also, I don't think a lot of people realize just how melodic Rite of Spring really is. A lot of sections are based on very simple, completely diatonic, modal folk-melodies. The introduction being the most blatant example but far from the only. There is actually a pretty admirable amount of economy in the material if anything.

-Not many people know this but Rite of Spring is actually a complete rip-off of John Williams' work. Rite of Spring was the result of Stravinsky listening to way too much of the original trilogy's soundtrack (which Stravinsky was reportedly a huge fan). Though, not the prequel trilogy as that objectively sucks balls. So Stravinsky was a hack on top of it all.

I disagree about the piece not being intense, or disturbing in some parts, although that's really subjective. You're right about the dissonance and melodic content, though. But for the late romantic idiom/period we can group it in, it's sufficiently dissonant/particular to make it stand out as revolutionary. Also, not enough people realize how much late romantic composers ripped off John Williams.

I don't think you can group this in the late romantic period. I think that is more like Mahler, Reger, and other over-emotional germans.

And I like to state that dissonant is not the same as scary or disturbing.

When I got a piece back from a concours, a Dutch composer (Daan Manneke) sugested me to listen to the RoS. My piece was quite tonal, features my first experiments with 5/16 and 6/16 measures (quite innovative for my language), so at first it really disturbed me. I did not understand it. Appreciation grew very slowly. Now its a classic example of vivid orchestration and interesting textures

If this is in the romantic period, then... Mozart is in the contemporary period!

I just heard the Rite of Spring today for the first time: I have to say, I'm impressed! It's really cool ;) I favorited the video on YouTube.

The Rite Spring reminds me of my very strict professor. This was the first piece he played in our class, and he asked us to criticize the music. what I can say is just, I simply love this composition. This is even great for piano lessons beginners The Rite of Spring spurs musical energy and color, making it a favorite ballet and musical piece of all time!

The Rite Spring reminds me of my very strict professor. This was the first piece he played in our class, and he asked us to criticize the music. what I can say is just, I simply love this composition. This is even great for piano lessons beginners The Rite of Spring spurs musical energy and color, making it a favorite ballet and musical piece of all time!

What did your teacher think? Did everyone look at you funny when you said you liked it? :musicwhistle:

While Rite is a great piece, there's much one could criticize, just like there's much one could criticize of any piece.

While Rite is a great piece, there's much one could criticize, just like there's much one could criticize of any piece.

Take Monteverdi's Orfeo for example. It's not the greatest opera on Earth, but we still play it because it "founded" the genre.

Take Monteverdi's Orfeo for example. It's not the greatest opera on Earth, but we still play it because it "founded" the genre.

Well, not only because of that - I hope. It's also an awesome opera by an awesome composer. Its musical qualities alone well justify performing it.

But, sorry, I don't want to help derailing this thread, so I'll shut up about Monteverdi now.

Well, not only because of that - I hope. It's also an awesome opera by an awesome composer. Its musical qualities alone well justify performing it.

Agreed. Orfeo is brilliant, especially in terms of orchestration (you have to hear it performed on period instruments to truly appreciate it). It's even more special considering that before Monteverdi's time orchestration was not given much thought (instruments were not even specified in a score).

Anyway, back to the Rite. There's a fair amount of discussion of the Rite in Alex Ross' book The Rest Is Noise, if anyone's interested. The only downside is that the info feels haphazardly strewn across a few chapters.