FOUR RUSSIANS in four minutes

For all of James's blogposts, books, music, and more, visit his website at

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

It is humanly impossible to discuss even one Russian composer adequately on a blog post, but have a quick read anyway. Anyone who takes music seriously must know something about these four men.

Stravinsky came first. To be fair, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninov and many others came before him, but for this discussion, Igor Stravinsky started it all.

Igor Stravinsky 1882-1971

He didn’t invent it; he just tweaked everything that had come before him so it sounded like he invented something new. His invention, sometimes called neoclassical, became 100 years of new music. That’s what great artists do: They tweak conventional thinking, and riots ensue. They blow art out of the water with new beauty, painful at times, but ultimately, lasting, inspirational beauty.

In 1913, Igor Stravinsky instigated riots in Paris with the premiere of The Rite of Spring. Le Sacre du Printemps’ or simply ‘Le Sacre’. This music was so new and challenging that the audience began screaming and booing within minutes; all mayhem broke out in the theater and spilled out onto the streets.

Le Sacre can be uphill listening for novices, so you might try Symphony of Psalms instead, a three-movement piece written nearly twenty years after Le Sacre and possibly one of the two or three best compositions ever composed for orchestra and choir. Intense from the outset, the first movement of full-on symphony and choir requires the wearing of a seatbelt, and the choral lamentations in the third movement leave one either breathless or in tears.

Sergei Prokofiev 1891-1953

Our second Russian composer is Sergei Prokofiev, who, while only nine years younger than Stravinsky, became widely known with Peter and the Wolf and Romeo and Juliette, but there is so, so much more to Prokofiev. Unlike many twentieth century composers, this man had the amazing talent for combining challenging contemporary harmonies with the most beautiful of melodies. You might start with his string quartets. Then try his Concerto for Violin and Orchestra no.1 and no.2. I prefer No. 1, but both are gorgeous. Try also his piano concertos and sonatas. Totally mind-blowing power and beauty.

Dmitri Shostakovich 1906-1975

Dmitri Shostakovich, our third on the list, has become a household name and needs little

introduction. Only fifteen years younger than Prokofiev, he takes music further still. He is known best for his fifteen symphonies, many of which have strong socio-political themes. However, Shostakovich’s essence is more easily uncovered in his other works. My favorite? His Preludes and Fugues for piano. The string quartets are a must listen, as is his Cello Concerto No.1.

Alfred Schnittke 

The fourth and last in this discussion is Alfred Schnittke (1934-1998). Schnittke’s works show influences from all three of the above composers, but he took them further, into new frontiers of harmony and rhythm, while always featuring beautiful melodies that are heart-wrenching at times. In most great works, there is tension and resolve; in Schnittke’s works, tension and resolve often occur simultaneously, creating huge emotional and musical impact. His works even explore early minimalism. Try his Requiem. Try his concerto for piano and strings. Explore his Symphony No. 8. Then move to violin sonatas and piano sonatas. There is much more.

So there. You have four influential composers from Russia who have changed the world of music. Humanity should consider themselves extremely fortunate to have lived in a time when the musical genius of these giants was accessible through recordings, published works, and performances. 

 

Mid-term election madness (Grrrrrrr!)

Remember this date: November 2, 2004. 

Ten years ago. A major turning point in American history occurred that day. It was the day George W. Bush got re-elected legitimately by the American people. On that day, the handwriting on the wall was written: what America wants is God, guns, and greed. Despite that election being close, a majority of Americans, including those who stood to benefit most from affordable healthcare, gun control, fewer tax loopholes for the rich and more regulations on Wall Street, seemed instead to favor ignorance (translate: Creationism and God), the NRA, market driven healthcare, oppression of women’s reproductive rights, military bravado without follow-through, and unfettered abuses by Wall Street.

The historical impact of that election was this: Americans will never be interested in making policy changes to provide an inclusive societal approach to human well being. Instead, the every-man-for-himself approach, answering only to a higher power, and an ever-increasing gap in income inequality, will likely continue. This will lead to a gradual decline in the financial and international stature of the United States. Sound familiar? Rome anyone?

We’ve already seen the evidence.

Despite numerous mass shootings in the last decade, Americans cannot manage to put the lid on ownership of major weaponry. Local candidates choose to please the NRA above their constituents, though most constituents would probably agree with the NRA. Congress, of course, opposes gun laws because Obama is in favor of them.

State laws, pushed through by bible-thumping Republicans, have eroded women’s reproductive freedoms.  Dressed up as  protection of life, defended in the name of God, it is really male-driven misogyny and oppression. The fact that many women vote for this legislation is an astounding example of misguided ignorance and belief.

Job-creators don’t care about creating real jobs for Americans. They care about creating profits for themselves. And they seem only do this if they are allowed to out-source to the cheapest, run-down labor force they can find in the developing world. They fight tooth and nail any tax code changes that might impede that behavior and reduce their profits.

Every person in finance likes to blame the ’08 recession on Bill Clinton’s freeing up of mortgage money to the middle class, way back last century. They accept no culpability for banks figuring out how to game the system, how to make oodles of money and dump all the risk back downstream to unsuspecting homebuyers who shouldn’t have been given mortgages in the first place. "Clinton made me do it", the banks say. Well, it came back to bite some of them, except, of course, the smartest and richest, who figured how to game the new system. Those same gamers still talk of deregulation, fewer taxes and ‘job-creators’ as the solution to all our national and international problems. In a word, GREED.

So America is nearing a midterm election. Obama has lost respect from some of his supporters. Yes, he could have done better. He might have taken advantage of Democratic majorities in both houses during his first two years to change the tax code and start to rein in obscene wealth while funding an infrastructure of well being. Then he could have banished health insurers who are beholden only to investors. He could have brought in the public option, which would have been (and could still be) immensely popular and successful.

Solutions? There will be oases of hope, such as eight years of President Obama; such as Governor Brown’s handling of California recently that brought the state into the black through tax code changes and selective spending cuts. But that can change on a dime. Clinton created a surplus during his presidency the same way. How long did that last after W took over?

If President Obama loses control of both houses in 2014, Republicans will celebrate, having effectively ‘thrown the bum out’. Without knowing it, what they will be celebrating is the unstoppable decline of the United States of America that began November 2nd, 2004, when George W. Bush was given a second term.