IGOR FIODOROVITCH STRAVINSKI

What the hell is up with Stravinski?
His first steps are easy to follow: Three Ballets, Three Resounding Successes. Each Ballet has its unique identity, each one is a big step toward modernity, culminating with "Le Sacre du Printemps" (The Rite of Spring).
But after that?
After the formidable explosion of Le Sacre, Stravinski resolutely threw away what he had been building up to, as if the Sacre was the apotheosis. He proceeded to strip down his music from all emotional content, any overwhelming effects. He embraced Neo-Classicism, an obvious reaction to the overwhelming excesses of post-romantic music and early 20th Century Music (including his own).
I understand that intellectually, but what is left in his music? This may be a valid concept, but it doesn't make for very good music.
The effect is puzzling. Is it an hommage to older forms, or is he mocking them? Is the music entertaining, subtly expressive, or just ironic? Stravinski has carefully stripped his work from the excessive means of expression that music had evolved to, but what is he offering instead? If we're looking for new forms of expression (and explore new emotions in music), shouldn't we rather turn to Schoenberg and the Viennese School?
Stravinski throughout his life refused to settle into a particular style. He had the courage to turn away even from his most spectacular successes. In that sense, he was a true Revolutionary, a musician who, like Beethoven or Wagner for example, constantly expanded his horizon. But in the end, his exploration seems so disjointed that the personality of his music is nearly lost. There is barely a common thread. And the negative view is that after the Sacre du Printemps, there was nothing left for Stravinski to say.
Past the Sacre, it's difficult to follow Stravinski's music. He who seemed like one of the most talented innovative composers of his time has mysteriously decided to mute his talent. The results are baffling.
Maybe I'm not that responsive to "Neo-Classicism" because I'm not crazy about the Classics to begin with!
Yet, with time, got to enjoy some of Stravinsky's later works (e.g. Histoire du Soldat).

Petrouchka

A pure jewel.
Stravinski achieves a unique tone in Petrouchka which would have been worthy of much further development (although I do hear some of it in Ravel (e.g. "L'Enfant et les Sortileges") or Prokofiev).
This is Stravinski's second Ballet (after "L'Oiseau de Feu"), but what a spectacular evolution!

Le Sacre Du Printemps

One of the defining masterpieces of the 20th Century.
For me, this is possibly the most exciting piece to ever hit a Concert Hall. The rabid rhythmic intensity, the deep primal roots of the music, the relentless impact of the full orchestra, are so overwhelming that it's hard to stay in one's seat. Even the most excessive works of Wagner, Mahler or Alban Berg don't quite rival the unbearable raw power that the Sacre generates.
Why is the Sacre so modern? Why was is it such a scandal?
Technically, the Sacre wasn't as avant-guarde as the scandal that it created would seem to indicate. Works by Webern or Schoenberg, to name just a few, had already gone further in atonality, or in breaking away from thematic music. But with the Sacre, it was the first time that "modern" music hit a very broad audience. The public of the Ballets Russes first fell in love with Stravinski's "L'Oiseau de Feu", a sure crowd pleaser. Then "Petrouchka", in spite of its more modern discourse, still captured the crowds by its playful nature and humorous tone. But when the Sacre and all its brutal savagery was unleashed on the audience, they just didn't understand what hit them!