Austin Jaquith wrote:

>I am researching "Le sacre du printemps" in terms of common perceptions
>regarding its importance in history compared to its actual historical
>influence.  I would appreciate any and all responses to this informal
>survery question:
>
>How do you regard Le sacre as a work in history in terms of its
>significance, influence, originality, and/or its musical origins?

My perspective is that Le Sacre was the right piece at the right time.
Its use of folk material is fairly well discussed.  The opening bassoon
solo is a folk song, one used by Mussorgsky in Sorochinsky Fair...an
aria which is introduced, not surprisingly, by a bassoon.

It was certainly not the most forward looking piece for its time.  Consider
the Schoenberg Five Pieces, which predates Le Sacre.

What made Le Sacre so influential was that it was performed often and
taken up by so many conductors.  I don't mean to diminish the genius of
the work, but it was heard, and heard often.  It was recorded twice, in
the early years.  As it has often been suggested, the response to the
first performance was probably due more to the dancing than the music.
I recall reading that the first concert performances met with great
success.

I am fond of pointing out several passages in Copland's Ballet Grogh
that were lifted from Le Sacre.  I remember talking with Ginastera about
composers being influenced by other composers, he looked at me and asked
if I knew his Panambi and Estancia.  I replied, very well.  He said
simply, "Le Sacre."

Karl