Fairly frequently I have reason to consider the relative importance of tradition
and innovation in the performance of music, usually coming to the conclusion that
both have value, and that a successful performer will find a balance point between
moribund traditionalism and wild-eyed radicalism.
Of course, historically one of the problems with traditions were that they were
so easily lost: not every great performer has had disciples willing to continue
his/her traditions. Fortunately, the advent of sound recording has removed most
of those problems, so that we now know how Gershwin thought Rhapsody in
Blue should sound, and can experience Rachmaninoff’s thinking on his own
piano concertos. And we now, thanks to Sony BMG, have a very clear idea of how
Igor Stravinsky thought his own works should be performed.
Works of Igor Stravinsky is a massive set: 22 CDs of performances
of
Rite of Spring,
Symphony in E-Flat,
The
Rake’s Progress and more under the direction of the composer, with additional
performances by his disciple Robert Craft under Stravnisky’s supervision, and a
disc (the
Sympony in E-Flat disc, actually) that includes recordings
of rehearsals and Stravinsky discussing his own music.
It’s hard to overstate Stravinsky’s influence on twentieth-century music. It is
so pervasive that, for example, while listening to Petrouschka,
I was reminded of the soundtrack for every busy urban scene in every film practically
since sound became part of movies. No less a figure than Claude Debussy wrote to
Stravinsky: “It is a special satisfaction to tell you how much you have enlarged
the boundaries of the permissible in the empire of sound.” And this was in 1913,
when Stravinsky was still only in his thirties.
Of course, I’m not one to think that the creator necessarily has the final word
on his creations. Others may see things that he is too close to discern, or facets
that he didn’t think important may take on new weight as times change. In this
regard, I found Stravinsky’s interpretations often fairly dry – not quite academic,
but without the elements of romance that other interpreters have found in the works.
This is not an overwhelming objection, mind you, but after hearing something like
the as interpreted by Seiji Ozawa, Stravinsky’s version is relatively tame.
I would also have preferred a different organization for the set, which is set up
by type of work – ballets, symphonies, oratorios, sacred music, etc. I think it
would have been more illuminating to have set this up in chronological order. Stravinsky,
like most artists, when through various stages in his career, from the radical avant-gardism
of his youth, through a period, much like Bartok, Kodaly, Enescu, and Vaughan Williams,
of incorporating folk and traditional materials into his work, and from there into
a strict neoclassicism and a modernist synthesis. This is a progression that I
think could have been very well illustrated – and led to a deeper understanding
of Stravinsky’s music -- by organizing the collection to take account of it.
However, I’m not going to say pass this up. It’s a tremendous collection, the music
of Stravinsky straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. But shop around: since I bought my set, as might be expected, the price has skyrocketed, if you can find it at all.
If you’d like to hear the way one of the twentieth century’s most important composers
thought about his own music, go for it.
(Sony / BMG Int’l, 2007)
