Myaskovsky Notes

Nicolai Myaskovsky: Official Site

Back in the days when I had an ear and mind only for tragic, ecstatic, grandiose, perspiring orchestral music, my heroes were those who wrote like mad either in number or in intensity or both: Bruckner, Mahler, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Popov, Schnittke and many other Slavs. And my curiosity naturally extended to Myaskovsky, for his 27 symphonies of course. So I bought a set of his complete orchestral music and began exploring. That was three years ago. Frankly, his music was not that memorable, and I have no memory for normal melodies, so I took notes (in Chinese) while listening. However, my mindset turned away before getting through 1/4 of the set, and I still don't remember any of his music even when reading the notes.

Now the thirst for spiritual catharsis through mental struggle is like a distant memory, and I pay more attention to the artistic side of music. Perhaps it's time to re-explore old-time leftovers in another light. So here it is.


Symphony No.1 in C minor, Op.3 (1908)

I. Lento, ma non troppo
II. Larghetto, guasi andante
III. Allegro assai e molto risoluto

I'm already forgetting. It sounds like an apprentice work on its way to be fully in its own shape. Very much in the Russian Romantic tradition. Techniques are easily heard. Tchaikovsky-like sequences, Rachmaninov-like unending broadness and richness in harmony, Scriabin-like "pursuit" of what's up there but less "pure".


Symphony No.2 in C sharp minor, Op.11 (1910)

I. Allegro
II. Allegro con fuoco

A huge step forward from Symphony No.1. The turbulence is taking shape. The structure of two huge movements reminds me of Prokofiev's Symphony No.2. Scriabin's influence is more obvious, but occupies lesser space. Ideas are more clearly defined and more individual in character, but the structure seems problematic.


Symphony No.3 in A minor, Op.15 (1913)

I. Non troppo vivo, vigoroso
II. Deciso e sdenjo

The movement structure is much more clearer than Symphony No.2, and motivic development is very obvious and still sounds like Scriabin. He's still exploring how to organize and project his inner turbulence. This time, the structure/organization wins. The pace of the first movement is very well controlled.
But in the second movement, it seems that emotion finally overcomes reason (of making a structure) and the music often arrives at standstills and has to make abrupt turns in order to keep going.


Symphony No.4 in E minor, Op.17 (1918)

I. Andante, mesto con sentimento
II. Largo, freddo e senza espressione
III. Allegro energico e marcato

This symphony is a further great step forward from the previous one. Motivic development is still everywhere, but there're more of more interesting moments. In the first movement, the two solo passages (violin & flute) are really touches of genius, so is the crystal-clear triad at the end.
The triumphant ending of the whole work actually took me by surprise. And the overall sweep throughout the last two movements is very effective. It doesn't at all feel tediouslike the 2nd movements of the previous two symphonies. It stands at the gate of greatness.

Finally I found something to read by Richard Whitehouse.


Symphony No.5 in D major, Op.18 (1918)

I. Allegretto amabile
II. Lento (Quasi andante)
III. Allegro burlando
IV. Allegro risoluto e con brio

"The first Soviet symphony" is indeed a quite straight-forward and easy listening. It's never brooding like the previous four. The falling semitone series in the first movement is a stroke of genius. The melody in the 2nd movement is unforgettable, and the scherzo is a delight. The finale has Prokofiev-like touches in burlesque march rhythms and thorny woodwind orchestration. In this aspect, it actually reminds me of Khrennikov's Symphony No.2.

All the previous bulky, drowning, Scriabin-esque, Rachmaninov-ian orchestral sound is gone. Richard Whitehouse: "The Glazunov model had been successfully refashioned for a new era."

More on this work from the Marco Polo CD booklet


Symphony No.6 in E flat minor, Op.23 (1921-23, 1947)

I. Poco largamente - Allegro feroce
II. Presto tenebroso - Andante moderato - Tempo I
III. Andante appassionato
IV. Allegro vivace (quasi presto) - Piu sostenuto: "Shto mi videli" - Andante molto espressivo

Since Svetlanov's recording drops the "ad libitum" choral parts, I listened to Neeme Jarvi's. I'd love to hear Dudarova's. Would someone please revive the Olympia recordings??

Biographical information is needed to "understand" this symphony, although a careful reader may immediately tell its general mood from tempo indications of the movements: allegro "feroce" in Mvt. 1, presto "tenebroso" in Mvt. 2, andante "appassionato" in mvt. 3, andante "molto espressivo" in Mvt. 4. Luckily, since it's now Myaskovsky's most famous work, there's more to read. (a program, wikipedia) At least, what sounds like abrupt turns in the "theatrical" 4th Movement is explained.
During Myaskovsky's years in the Red Army (1917 - 1921), his father, an ex-Tsarist general, was murdered (well this may sound weird for Chinese, for Mao's government would simply forbid the son of a general of the enemy to join the army); his aunt died; his brother-in-law committed suicide. The country was in heavy disorder. Plus his own troubled "misanthropic" nature... This symphony sounds like the testimony from a deeply disturbed person who participated in what he witnessed. Many called it the greatest Russian symphony between Tchaikovsky 6th (1893) and Shostakovich 4th (1934-36). This I surely cannot agree. In the least there's Scriabin 3rd, if one really can't tell if Rachmaninov 3rd is earlier than Shostakovich 4th. Then, a comparison between Myaskovsky 6th and Shostakovich 4th may be interesting. Both last about 65 minutes and are (thus?) "Mahlerian" in scale and in the variety of moods and types of music. Both are huge sweeps in emotion and structure and are very dark in general. Then, as said, where Myaskovsky stood as a disturbed witness, Shostakovich was a much colder onlooker, totally unmoved and hardened. And the endings of the two symphonies tell the difference.

Musicwise, Myaskovsky still develops his ideas in a old fashioned sequential and motivic manner, but his ideas are more acute and expressive than in previous symphonies. Moreover, I really love his orchestration. The solos are very effective (if not beautiful in what's meant to be not beautiful,) the climaxes are really powerful, and in many places the sound simply baffles me. And I also begin to love his harmonic language. So, one of the magical sounds of the whole symphony is the chord a few bars after No.72 in the 1st Movement:

Another interesting point is where the chorus is about to enter in the Finale. The angry, eager, yearning "wailing" motif (dropping minor second) is exactly like the beginning of Gorecki's Symphony No.2 "Copernican", another very furious gesture (of the celestial bodies?). Motivic link apart, this is, for me, the most thrilling moment in the whole symphony, sending chills up my spine. The "wailing" sounds exactly like what the Chinese call "summoning of the souls." As program note of the American Symphony Orchestra says: "The new Symphony was a farewell to the victims of these dark years, a spiritual journey, an attempt to live in music through the tragedy and mystery of death and to come to grips with it."