Scriabin

[redbaron]

Hello good people of pianostreet. What do you all think of Alexander Scriabin?

[dnephi]

I think he says it best: "I am God."

He's is absolutely one of my favorite composers.  He began as one of the greatest romantic composers with characteristic incredible emotional intensity.  As he became involved in the occult, his style drastically changed and created meditative, experimental music in an esoteric tonal language which clearly differentiates his music from others'.

I recommend, as introductory material:

Op. 8 Nos. 5, 9, 12
Op. 42 No. 5
Op. 28
Op. 6 (Sonata #1)
Sonata #2, Op. 17
And slowly introduce yourself to the more bizarre:
Sonata #4 Op. 30
Poeme Tragique, Op. 34
Sonata #5 (Don't remember opus number)
Sonata #7 (Black Mass)
Vers La Flamme (Op. 72)

[franz_]

Since I was 12, it's my favorite composer...

[dnephi]

Since I was 12, it's my favorite composer...

I like your taste.

Actually, I've happened upon the following thought: Scriabin fulfills Liszt's dreams.

He created organic, thematically unified forms, full of all possible brilliance and exploitation of sonority, exceptional chromaticism, voice leading, national character, and a unique voice and declamatory style. 

What else could Liszt have asked for?

[rachfan]

I love Scriabin's music up to about Op. 60.  Once his style transcends into the mystical, I lose interest.  Although I've been playing piano for a very long time, I've never played any Scriabin.  This week I decided to take the plunge, and am working now on his Poem, Op. 32, No. 2. 

[Petter]

What would be the absolute easiest piece? They all look monsterous. Any recordings or records I should look for? Did Richter record Scriabin? What about Horowitz? Anything with Michelangeli? I love him.

[retrouvailles]

I love Scriabin's music up to about Op. 60.  Once his style transcends into the mystical, I lose interest.

That is quite a shame because some of his best and most original work comes from when he "transcends into the mystical", as you put it. You really should try and go back to it sometime, preferably with an open mind and with open ears. Perhaps you should start with his 10th sonata, which I have found is a great piece for converting those like yourself who do not like his later works.

[dnephi]

Vers La Flamme seems to be a very accessible later piece as well. 

I don't think it's easy to be left unaffected by the dramatic and bizarre tonal swinging, and the brilliance is spectacular.  The cracking of the flame is so realistic.

[chocolatecocoa]

I suppose I really appriciate his attitude, and his unique style of music. Which is your favorite piece?

[mattgreenecomposer]

Scriabin paints with a brush that depicts the emotional charge one would recieve before suicide and then consoles us with the white light after... 

[webern78]

Scriabin paints with a brush that depicts the emotional charge one would recieve before suicide

I'm not sure that's a positive quality. Perverted little *** if that's the case.

I like Scriabin from a purely formal point of view anyway. I try not to muster an emotional response unless i'm guaranteed genuine beauty, which is why i find this attempt to equate 20th century neurosis under the same terms reserved for classical expression to be laughable at best.

[aewanko]

What would be the absolute easiest piece? They all look monsterous. Any recordings or records I should look for? Did Richter record Scriabin? What about Horowitz? Anything with Michelangeli? I love him.

there's no such thing as easy when it comes to scriabin but maybe the Etude op 2 no 1 will do. Richter, Horowitz, and Michelangeli recorded Scriabin

[indutrial]

I'm not sure that's a positive quality. Perverted little *** if that's the case.

I like Scriabin from a purely formal point of view anyway. I try not to muster an emotional response unless i'm guaranteed genuine beauty, which is why i find this attempt to equate 20th century neurosis under the same terms reserved for classical expression to be laughable at best.

Wouldn't an emotional response initially have to be more spontaneous and not something that needs to be 'mustered.' Since you apparantly know them when you see them, what are the outer boundaries for 'genuine beauty?'

To answer the OP, I definitely like Scriabin and a lot of the composers he inspired in Russia and Eastern Europe. I especially enjoy his work from Op. 30 forward, including his "mystical" later works.

[mattgreenecomposer]

Thank you Indutrial!

"I like Scriabin from a purely formal point of view anyway. I try not to muster an emotional response unless i'm guaranteed genuine beauty."

Then why do you listen to music then?   If you just care about the formal construction why don't you become a mathemetician?  What is form anyways?  Isn't it just a means of construction and usually includes some sort of repitition or variation.  It does not superceed the whole point of music which is a language or a means of communicating something that can't be expressed into words.   Take the importance of pitch and harmony and emotion out of the equation and you get the 2nd Vienesse school,  which judging by your name is what you like/listen too anyways. 

And the idea of emotion in music is not a 20th century concept, its a romantic period concept, and Scriabin is not a "classical" composer.  I would classify him as romantic for the most part- but whatever.

The point of my earlier comment is that his music is extremely intense and emotional-which in my opinion as a composer is what makes "good" music.

[rachfan]

Hi retrouvailles,

OK, I promise I'll listen to the Sonata No. 10 tonight.  Usually I stop after No. 5, but, yeah, I'll give it a try.

[dnephi]

mathematician repetition supercede Viennese to it's +Grammatical/Syntax errors.

Many people find Schoenberg expressive.  In fact, Charles Rosen says in his book, "The Romantic Generation, that there are very few people who would perpetuate the idea that he is not.  I don't think that the 2nd Viennese school is well understood by many people, and I don't think that it can be generalized either way.

Daniel

[rachfan]

Hokay,

I just listened to Scriabin's Sonata No. 10, Op. 70 as played by koji, who does a terrific job with the piece.  As soon as he played the first measure, it came back to me, although I hadn't listened to No. 10 for a few years (as I avoid the late opus numbers).  In style I think it's very much akin to the proximate Op. 72, "Vers la Flamme" that Horowitz was so fond of playing.  Never cared for that piece either.

Yes, my ears were bent, stretched, and fully open.  So does the piece blow me away?  Nope!  Does it appeal to me as much as the earlier Sonatas Nos. 3, 4, and 5?  Not nearly!  Would it motivate me to eagerly delve more into the late Scriabin mysticism pieces?  I'm afraid not.  To me the late music of Scriabin is of the same genre as Sorabji--way too far out and not especially compelling.   

I'll continue to stay within Op. 60 where Scriabin was at his very best composing music of incredible beauty.     Many will disagree with me, will be incredulous that I dislike the late opus numbers, and will wax enthusiastically as to how extraordinary are the  pieces like No. 10.  That's great; however, individuals' tastes in music often differ.

[indutrial]

Yes, my ears were bent, stretched, and fully open.  So does the piece blow me away?  Nope!  Does it appeal to me as much as the earlier Sonatas Nos. 3, 4, and 5?  Not nearly!  Would it motivate me to eagerly delve more into the late Scriabin mysticism pieces?  I'm afraid not.  To me the late music of Scriabin is of the same genre as Sorabji--way too far out and not especially compelling.   

I'll continue to stay within Op. 60 where Scriabin was at his very best composing music of incredible beauty.     Many will disagree with me, will be incredulous that I dislike the late opus numbers, and will wax enthusiastically as to how extraordinary are the  pieces like No. 10.  That's great; however, individuals' tastes in music often differ.

Though our tastes on this matter (and certainly a lot of other pieces, since I'm an obsessive 20h century music listener) are different, I appreciate the fact that you're at least admitting that it's entirely a choice of personal taste and not indicative of you standing in the name of some objective truth about beauty that 20th century supporters have besmirched by listening to jagged rhythms and dissonant harmonies. It's refreshing to hear a criticism that doesn't reek of any of the typical arrogance and idealist absolutism that so often crosses into discussions about Sorabji and other post-1900 composers.

BTW, how goes your ongoing hunt for neo-romantic works from 1900-forward? Since I'm morbidly obsessed with so-called neo-classical work, which roughly lays across the same time period, I definitely encounter lots of names from both territories.

[retrouvailles]

I would advise to anyone that skeptically listens to Scriabin's later output to not listen to the music looking for a tonality and harmonic progressions for a reason to be moved by the music. The way one is moved by Scriabin's later music is by the textural changes, rather than harmonic ones, and by the changes in the momentum of the music. This started in his mid years and fully materialized in his later compositions. I understand that his later music may not be to everyone's taste, but it is still worthy of recognition. You just need to throw any preconceived notions of music and emotion out the window. Not just for his later music, but for any music. It makes listening to music (anything!) all the better when your mind is cleared of how any music should move you.

[rachfan]

Hi indutrial,

Thanks for understanding my viewpoint.  I appreciate that!

On my search for what are now termed "conservative post modern neo-romantics", I've decided to work up to it, but slowly.  To start off, I'll be doing some earlier 20th Century repertoire--John Ireland, Frank Bridge, Cecile Charminade, and Heitor Villa Lobos.  It's like the difference between easing yourself into a pool versus jumping in.  I've obtained sheet music and have more on the way.

Before launching into that though, I need to finish up my Bortkiewicz project.  I've been quite dedicated to that, bringing his music to members here, often for first hearings.  I expect to post two new recordings in the Audition Room in the very near future.  (The Baldwin is being tuned this coming Friday.)  At this time I'm also working up Scriabin's Poem, Op. 32, No. 2 in D.  Many pianists seem to record the lyrical No. 1, but shy away from the stormy No. 2.  I love the piece--early Scriabin, yes!!!  I won't be able to play it like Sofronitsky or Neuhaus, and probably not fully up to tempo either, but I am hoping for a creditable rendition.

Then I can get into the music of those other composers listed above.  And from there, who knows?  I'm still exploring.

[rachfan]

Hi retrouvailles,

You make excellent points on Scriabin's markedly different idiom in the late works, and the best approach to listening and appreciating it all.  I definitely can give them their due on an academic level.  No problem there.  But...  I'm not moved by those pieces.  And for me, that a very crucial part of experiencing music, albeit admittedly old fashioned.  I guess these pieces clearly impact different listeners differently. 

[Derek]

I have a huge poster of him above my digital piano. This doesn't mean I grovel before him and allow what biographical facts I know about him influence how I think or write music but...I do love his music and I think its fun to have it up there.

[webern78]

I appreciate the fact that you're at least admitting that it's entirely a choice of personal taste and not indicative of you standing in the name of some objective truth about beauty that 20th century supporters have besmirched by listening to jagged rhythms and dissonant harmonies. It's refreshing to hear a criticism that doesn't reek of any of the typical arrogance and idealist absolutism that so often crosses into discussions about Sorabji and other post-1900 composers.

Ha yes, so refreshing to hear a criticism that conforms to the relativist status quo. Completely unheard of around this parts. 

[webern78]

Take the importance of pitch and harmony and emotion out of the equation and you get the 2nd Vienesse school,  which judging by your name is what you like/listen too anyways. 

Good grief no. I'm not particularly fond of the 12-tone method. I consider Schoenberg to be a man of great intelligence but i think he had no real genius to speak of, and he was totally off the mark with his theories and botched attempts to push German music forward. My namesake is an homage to Webern as the great master of form and his ability to transcend the limited possibilities of atonality to crate genuine masterpieces.

For me, form in art is everything, which is why i have such an hard time accepting the music of our age as anything other then a complete distortion of the ideals which have fueled western art since the days of classical times.

[dnephi]

What do you think, Webern78, of Liszt's sonata forms, bizarre, enormous, and intricate?

[indutrial]

For me, form in art is everything, which is why i have such an hard time accepting the music of our age as anything other then a complete distortion of the ideals which have fueled western art since the days of classical times.

Just because almost all of the most important composers in the 20th century allowed their viewpoints and methods to develop in territory beyond the borders of your interests (and those of your favorite composers) doesn't mean that they've distorted anything or that anything about music has been set on the wrong path. The ideals you speak of may have been convincing at one point, but like all ideals, political and religious, they were bound to dissolve, mostly in the wake of the fact that they are nothing more than ideals, and are allowed to be ignored.

Whether Schoenberg is a genius or not, his influence has definitely made some important waves, which has given us other great composers like Babbitt and Wuorinen (who referred to Scheonberg as a "musical grandfather" of sorts).

Please god don't let this become another bullheaded bulls*it-fest about form, content, aesthetics, and the spiritual truth behind music because that crapola always derails the conversations from actually centering on composers, their works, or anything that actually exists on this earth.

[nanabush]

His second piano Sonata (Sonate Fantaisie) in G# minor changed the way I look at music... the best piece of piano music I've ever heard, I felt obligated to learn it lol.  Well, the first movement at least, the second is really nice, but damn that first one really had an impact.

I really like his last set of etudes, [I think] Op. 65; the last in that set is awesome, but I'm sure it's difficult.

His music is all really good, but that sonata... I've posted about it before in the past haha, and it still has the same effect when I hear it.

[indutrial]

His second piano Sonata (Sonate Fantaisie) in G# minor changed the way I look at music... the best piece of piano music I've ever heard, I felt obligated to learn it lol.  Well, the first movement at least, the second is really nice, but damn that first one really had an impact.

I really like his last set of etudes, [I think] Op. 65; the last in that set is awesome, but I'm sure it's difficult.

His music is all really good, but that sonata... I've posted about it before in the past haha, and it still has the same effect when I hear it.

The last minute or two of the first movement of that sonata just sweeps me away. When it's played with the right touch, it sounds like the right hand part consists of two hands delicately sweeping arpeggios across a harp. His loose-sounding (but specific) rhythmic/tempo approach really gives the piece an incredible fluidity. The second movement just rips and it sounds like an incredibly difficult piece to pass off as natural-sounding. To think that he created such a work when he was roughly my age (as well as the op. 8 etudes and several dozen other stunning pieces) humbles me profoundly!