Scriabin or Rachmaninov?

[arensky]

Just scanned through this thread, and one of the things I noticed was a lot of discussion about being "innovative", usually in reference to Scriabin. I don't think Scriabin deliberately set out to be innovative; I think his three styles evolve and develop naturally, each one out of the other, as opposed to Stravinsky's stylistic changes which are abrupt and deliberate, as if he had decided he was on the wrong track and so reinvented himself. Stravinsky was a concious innovater, whereas Scriabin evolved, using the same proceedures and compositional techniques. Sure the Preludes of op. 11 and op.74 sound very different, but the style and texture of the writing is basically the same.

I think Scriabin did not try to deliberately be innovative or different, it just turned out that way, as he expanded his style to encompass new sonorities. He was following his harmonic language to where it could go to express himself, not deliberately altering it just for the sake of being different.

[I Love Xenakis]

Neither of them were very innovative.  They were both very exploring though.

[panic]

Rach's 1st sonata is a prime candidate for most underrated piece IMO, perhaps excluding Alkan stuff. It single-handedly convinced me that three-movement sonata form was superior to four-movement. But I'll echo what sevencircles said, Scriabin himself is vastly underrated as a person, not just in a certain piece of his. He's about the only example I can think of in which you can see, piece by piece, a progression from traditional to avant-garde. The Fantasy in B minor is one of my favorite pieces, and to think that it's probably not one of Scriabin's very best or most famous...

Well, I am torn in this vote. To think that Rach, Scriabin and Medtner all had the same teacher, though...That guy needs a shrine built to him or something.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

Just scanned through this thread, and one of the things I noticed was a lot of discussion about being "innovative", usually in reference to Scriabin. I don't think Scriabin deliberately set out to be innovative; I think his three styles evolve and develop naturally, each one out of the other, as opposed to Stravinsky's stylistic changes which are abrupt and deliberate, as if he had decided he was on the wrong track and so reinvented himself. Stravinsky was a concious innovater, whereas Scriabin evolved, using the same proceedures and compositional techniques. Sure the Preludes of op. 11 and op.74 sound very different, but the style and texture of the writing is basically the same.

I think Scriabin did not try to deliberately be innovative or different, it just turned out that way, as he expanded his style to encompass new sonorities. He was following his harmonic language to where it could go to express himself, not deliberately altering it just for the sake of being different.

hmm, i never thought of it that way. but it's great to hear this, now i have to see him in a different way. i actually based my assumption of him trying too hard to be innovative because of what i read about him as a person.

still, i need to do some more research... sigh! having read your opinion about his evolution as a composer, then, whatever happened to his sonatas, especially after the 5th? a great transformation! (then again, even the 2nd is a wonderful development of his writing after the 1st).

wow.

[donjuan]

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're so wrong it literally hurts.

I agree.  Rachmaninoff was a very famous composer looooooooong before Shine came out..

[rachmaninoffismyfav]

As you can tell by my username, I love Rachmaninoff.  Instead, of trying to bring down Scriabin or denigrate him, I'll just tell you why I love Rachmaninoff.  Many his solo piano pieces, such as the Preludes, Moments Musicals, and Etude Tableaux have extremely powerful climaxes which makes them a joy to play and more importantly a joy to listen to.  Listen to the climax at the end of the first half of the prelude in Eb Major, Opus. 23 No. 6.  That climax has amazing power and beauty at the same time.  He could write fast virtuoso pieces and at the same time, he could write a piece like Moment sMusical, Opus 16 No. 3, which is slow, powerful, and above all beautiful.  Rachmaninoff wrote 3 concertos that will always be in the repetoire. 1 contains much beautiful writing. 2 will always be my favorite piece of music in the world.  3 is right behind two, and contains, what I consider to be the most beautiful and powerful climax in the history of music.  Anybody reading this post probably has noticed that I keep referring to climaxes.  Well, I do this because Rachmaninoff said that every piece of music has only true culminating point, and it was the artist's job to make sure that all sounds are measured so that climax appears to come forward effortlessly even though achieving that musical climax is the height of artistry.  Now, I would like to say that I read a post that said that Scriabin wrote much more piano music than Rachmaninoff did and I guess that poster was using that as one of the reasons he preferred Scriabin.  Well, Beethoven only wrote 9 symphonies but they are all performed constantly.  Haydn wrote over 100, but how many of those are actively performed by the various Symphonies of the world.  I think quality is more important than quantity.  Finally, I've heard people say that much of Rachmaninoff's music is shmaltzy or something to that extent.  I don't think that beauty is shmaltz.  I think that beauty, whether it be sad or happy, obvious or subtle, is the highest thing that a composer can achieve

[vers la flamme]

Scriabin is a genius.

Scriabin wanted to be a pianist and became a composer. Rachmaninoff wanted to be a composer and ended up a pianist. Both wrote some of the most beautiful piano music, and the most difficult.

I say Scriabin only because, he is my God.

[arensky]

hmm, i never thought of it that way. but it's great to hear this, now i have to see him in a different way. i actually based my assumption of him trying too hard to be innovative because of what i read about him as a person.

still, i need to do some more research... sigh! having read your opinion about his evolution as a composer, then, whatever happened to his sonatas, especially after the 5th? a great transformation! (then again, even the 2nd is a wonderful development of his writing after the 1st).

wow.

In a nutshell, he started to chromatically alter the dominant 7th chord, as well as extending it to the 9th, 11th and 13th degrees. This resulted in a Quartal stack, or an altered 7th chord comprised entirely of 4ths, perfect diminished and augmented. It is also an overlapping series of minor 7ths. His later music, from op.58 on is based on this chord and numerous variants. Two good introductions to his late style that use this harmony in basic but very different ways are the Albumleaf op.58 and Two Preludes op.67. Here, a picture is often worth a thousand words; check it out for yourself.                               
                          
                              

This came from Wikipedia, and also here is the link to the whole article...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_chord

[arensky]

_bump

[Barbosa-piano]

  I chose Rachmaninoff because of his unique style, and musical personality. I like Scriabin, but I usually prefer his early works. When I play or sightread Scriabin's late works, I feel no connection to what the music is suppose to communicate. Rachmaninoff always captivates me, and my view of his personality make me think of him as a grandfather to me. Even his biography and stories are interesting.
     His music has a kind of eminent power, and it always fits my hands very well. His music is never maudlin, but very expressive. And don't get me wrong, I think Scriabin has these atributes as well, but Rachmaninoff expresses my thoughts for me, through his music- It describes my personality.

[arensky]

   When I play or sightread Scriabin's late works, I feel no connection to what the music is suppose to communicate.

Indeed; it's cryptic stuff. I've always enjoyed it, and have played a few of the late works, Five Preludes op.74 for instance. Those are definitely dark works, not cheerful in the slightest. Then there's pieces like Sonatas # 7 and #10 and the Poems op.69. These pieces seem "upbeat" to me, although certainly not in a conventional way. It seems that Scriabin was living in his own musical world, redefining the expressive parameters of music for himself.

[tompilk]

Indeed; it's cryptic stuff. I've always enjoyed it, and have played a few of the late works, Five Preludes op.74 for instance. Those are definitely dark works, not cheerful in the slightest. Then there's pieces like Sonatas # 7 and #10 and the Poems op.69. These pieces seem "upbeat" to me, although certainly not in a conventional way. It seems that Scriabin was living in his own musical world, redefining the expressive parameters of music for himself.

yes... true... 

Scriabin is a genius.

Scriabin wanted to be a pianist and became a composer. Rachmaninoff wanted to be a composer and ended up a pianist. Both wrote some of the most beautiful piano music, and the most difficult.

I say Scriabin only because, he is my God.

even scriabin said that he was a god... must be true 

Rach's 1st sonata is a prime candidate for most underrated piece IMO, perhaps excluding Alkan stuff. It single-handedly convinced me that three-movement sonata form was superior to four-movement. But I'll echo what sevencircles said, Scriabin himself is vastly underrated as a person, not just in a certain piece of his. He's about the only example I can think of in which you can see, piece by piece, a progression from traditional to avant-garde. The Fantasy in B minor is one of my favorite pieces, and to think that it's probably not one of Scriabin's very best or most famous...

Well, I am torn in this vote. To think that Rach, Scriabin and Medtner all had the same teacher, though...That guy needs a shrine built to him or something.

true also... his sonata 1 is awesome and harly anybody plays it... and alkan op 39 is heavenly, but most of his other stuff is a bit boring...
TOm