... [I]n the early years of the twentieth century ... the Russians ... determined much of the direction of modern music... We all owe a great debt to such composers as ... Prokofiev...
ELLIOTT CARTER [1]
_________________________
If Carter included himself among the "we all" composers indebted to Prokofiev, he never, as far as I know, discussed in print the specifics of his debt to the Russian composer. Nor is this debt obvious in Carter's works, except perhaps for the short piano piece Catenaires published in 2006 when Carter was 98. This music's motoric, relentless forward drive has always reminded me of Prokofiev's Toccata Op.11, but then someone else may just as well hear it as a tribute to Schumann's Toccata Op.7. Or to the Gigue in Bach's B-flat major Partita BWV 825. Or to some of Scarlatti's virtuosic sonatas.
Be that as it may, Catenaires can be a hugely exciting encore piece, which is why it is regrettable that the pianist for whom this piece was written (Pierre-Laurent Aimard) plays it in the same dour, matter-of-fact manner he plays everything else. Fortunately there are other pianists who play Catenaires, and I doubt I will ever hear a more thrilling performance of this work than the one given by Vassilis Varvaresos at the 2009 Van Cliburn Piano Competition.
_________________________
1. Carter, E., "Soviet Music", Collected Essays and Lectures, U. of Rochester Press, 1997, p.331.
5 comments:
In the context in which that sentence appears, I don’t think Carter was acknowledging a particular influence or debt to Prokofiev (although on recordings his cello sonata has been coupled with Carter’s Sonata for piano and cello (1948)). What he says is that in the early years of the twentieth century, the Russians supplied the modern movement with many important philosophical and aesthetic ideas that determined much of the direction of modern music and painting. He lists Scriabin, Prokofiev and Stravinsky, the most prominent composers of that generation, as well as certain artists and writers. Modernism in Russia was, and remains, highly influential, albeit cut-back in the 1920s. Carter says, we all (not “I”) owe them a great debt, though in the course of the essay it is clear that for him Stravinsky was the most important figure.
For what it’s worth, arguably there are passages in Carter’s Piano Sonata (1945), particularly the first movement, that might be regarded as Prokofievian in texture, but that could just be a coincidence. Certainly, as you point out, none of his later music bears any such influence, but as I say, I don’t think Carter actually claims that – his remarks are more wide-ranging.
And I’ve always liked Aimard’s performances of “Catenaires” and other works by Carter, who clearly rated him as a pianist. His recording of Ligeti’s Etudes is wonderful, as is his recent recording of Messiaen’s Catalogue d’Oiseaux.
And to add a further point about influences: they can take many forms. As Charles Rosen once remarked, Carter’s music can be seen as a synthesis of Stravinsky and Schoenberg, without sounding like either of them.
>> As Charles Rosen once remarked, Carter’s music can be seen as a synthesis of Stravinsky and Schoenberg, without sounding like either of them. <<
I and could reply to Rosen that Carter's music was influenced by Varese and the jazz clubs on 52nd Street (which he reportedly frequented) and these influences are audible in many Carter's works. (For what it is worth, Carter is on record having said he finds Schoenberg's music intolerable because of its numbing rhythmic character.)
And indeed, many other influences and traces. I don’t think Rosen was saying those were the only elements in Carter’s music, just significant ones. Because A is influenced by B doesn’t mean that everything about B can be found in A, or that every aspect of B is regarded as of equal importance, or admired by A. Both Rosen and Carter were of the view that some of the rhythms in Schoenberg’s later music were hopelessly “four-square”.
Given that Carter and Rosen clearly spent much time discussing music, it seems unlikely that he would have made that observation if nothing in Schoenberg’s music had any appeal to Carter. For example: Carter acknowledged the importance of the op. 31 Variations for Orchestra when it came to writing his own Variations, and Ewartung in respect of non-linear progression, and had a number of complimentary things to say about Schoenberg’s music, particularly the earlier works. As I said, influence can be a tricky business, it admits of degrees and is not an all or nothing affair.
1.) I love Catenaires. It was one of the works that serves as the “key” to my understanding of Carter’s music. Thank you for this splendid performance!
2.) How we understand the concept of “modern music” is indeed something to which we owe much to the Russians, but their legacy is something of a double-edged sword. The Russians—mostly the Soviets, to be specific—left a lasting reactionary legacy. It could be argued that the example of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich ultimately de-modernized modern music, curbing it away from the progressivism of Schoenberg and his successors.
Stravinsky, for example, composed neo-traditional music for most of his career; Nadia Boulanger then spread that gospel far and wide. What irked listeners of his time wasn’t so much his musical material itself, but the incongruous contexts in which he would juxtapose and develop them. (Even his late works—which I adore—make his latent conservatism heard.) In this respect his function like Mahler’s, but in negative image.
Emblematic of all this is how most of your average listeners today would probably say that Shostakovich was the “greatest” composer of the 20th century. The music of Webern, to say nothing of Carter, are thought by many of them (especially by the young) as an “aberration” which these Russians “corrected”.
Post a Comment