Gerardo Constantin wrote:

>Well i think a Stravinsky guitar composition can be a nightmare.  I
>like a lot 50% of his work,the other 50 % i don't like,but despite of
>it Stravinsky"language" i think is not suitable for guitar(sorry,the
>explanation of it is to long,and write it is very hard for me),for many
>reasons.

Yes, when you think of suitable composers for guitar, Igor's name certainly
doesn't pop right into your mind.  But he was probably capable of writing
in a more amazing variety of styles than almost any other composer, so I
have no doubt that he could have turned out a very idiomatic piece.

On the other hand, he was probably used to writing things on such a large
scale that confining himself to the resources of this instrument might have
been equivalent to Tiger Woods forcing himself to play miniature golf.  I
think this is the main reason most first-rank composers have not bothered
to write for the git-box.

Still, the instrument does have a lot more going for it than most people
think.  Again, it is mostly limitations on the imaginations of composers
and skills of players that is responsible for its reputation.  Anyone who
listens to, for example, Eliot Fisk doing Rochberg's "Caprice Variations"
(Music Masters 01612-67133-2) is in for a real education in this respect.

>I don't think technical difficulty could be a problem for maestro
>Segovia.He just liked 100% beautiful music.

I didn't mean that Segovia would have been deterred by the technical
difficulty of a Stravinsky work (although I suspect that IS could have
come up with something that would have defeated even Segovia).  I meant
that mere mortals such as I would be frightened to death of it.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]