Nikolay Miaskovsky (1881-1950)

[André]

Cross-posted from the WAYL2 thread, as I'm currently embarked in a listening binge of the symphonies. There may be some repetition from one post to the other...

From the Alto box:



Before I bought the Alto box, I had collected about half of its contents on individual Olympia issues many years ago. Then the missing issues went missing for good  . The good thing is that the box takes only a fraction of the shelf space.

Myaskovsky's themes are often quite simple. From them he patiently builds mighty edifices of sound and from those are generated surging currents and powerful climaxes. Svetlanov's involvement is almost that of a co-creator. One of the major undertakings of the recording era.

Not masterpieces, but these two symphonies do contain masterful moments that make the whole disc wonderfully satisfying. Myaskovsky's forte are those big, imposing first movements and soulful, melancholic slow ones. About half of his symphonies are in three movements (which is the case with the two recorded here) with the last movement being more complex structurally (sometimes embedding a scherzo within them). Both no 2 and no 18 contain richly melodic slow movements. The link between Tchaikovsky, Glière and Rachmaninoff is palpable. They drew their inspiration from the same well.

That 3rd symphony from 1914 is mighty impressive, maybe the best I've heard from that composer. The first movement is a huge edifice building up to intense statements of pain and anguish. In the second (last) movement strong thematic influences by Franck and Wagner are welded in a gripping narrative. There is nothing derivative in the way he uses what was already by then part of the musical tools of 20th century musical language. Myaskovsky is very much his own man.

Symphony no 13 from 1933 is in one movement and is described as akin to a symphonic poem or maybe a symphonic work in the style of Skryabin. It is a somber, melancholy work. I do not hear the strife and conflict of the 3rd, rather a sort of rampant anguish tinged with resignation.

The Alto box respects the Olympia series' original layout. It brings together early and middle/late works. There is a practical reason behind this programming schedule: the early works are bigger, longer than the middle or late ones, so typically a 45 minute early symphony will be coupled with a 25-30 minute late one. Obviously there could have been many different permutations

From 1918 and 1932.

No 4 is a bleak work, seemingly drained of emotion (the heading of the central movement is Largo, freddo e senza espressione  ). As if to make up the corpse the following and last movement is an Allegro energico e marcato. It's also the least interesting movement. The first two are colossally intimidating in their bleakness. I'm not sure they could have been topped - or at least equalled - by anything else.

No 11 was composed in 1932 and was Myaskovsky's first symphony after an unusually long hiatus of 5 years. He churned out 6 symphonies in the period 1932-34. His lifelong friend Prokofiev had written to him as early as 1908 that « Unlike Richard Wagner, you have the characteristic of always being dissatisfied with yourself ». These bouts of silence followed by a rush of activity were recurrent in his career, suggesting he may have been manic depressive. Be that as it may, the 11th presents strongly profiled themes, a lot of rythmic action as if the composer's creative juices were flowing once more irrepressibly.

These first two movements of no 4 are certain to etch in the memory.

As usual, playing and conducting are extremely committed and the sound fully satisfying. Obviously Svetlanov and friends were on a mission.

Second listening today.

No 5 (1918) is certainly a highlight of the series, with beautiful themes, superb atmosphere and an excellent balance between moods - both within movements and in its overall structure. Yesterday I listened to the 4th symphony and was bowled over by its first two movements. In contrast the finale - the symphony is in 3 movements - struck me as perfunctory, almost superfluous (I can understand why Schubert left his b minor symphony unfinished. What more could be said after two perfect, almost supernatural movements?). That is not the case with the 5th symphony (in 4 movements) where the inventiveness and artistry of the last two movements perfectly complement the aching beauty and breadth of the first two. A masterpiece IMO.

The 12th from 1932 is in 3 movements - Myaskovsky constantly alternated formats. It is resolutely folk-based in its thematic armoury. Have the composer's style or ideas evolved in the intervening years ? Not really. The 5th was written at the end of WWI. The 5th as Stalin's grip on political, social, cultural institutions was becoming absolute. The same kind of oppressiveness, uneasy joy, tragedy, longing recurs throughout, year after year, symphony after symphony. Among the first 14, only one is in a major key. That's a lot of music in a minor key ! And yet a sense of beauty emerges that keeps the ear not just interested, but wanting more of the stuff. Myaskovsky's relish for life (even a hard, uneasy one) is evident throughout this 12th symphony.

Sometimes Myskovsky sounds like a precursor of Pettersson, sometimes like a reincarnation of Tchaikovsky, Glazunov or Mussorgsky. The atmosphere of Act III from Tristan und Isolde or that of Act II from Siegfried suffuse the more somber, aching moments. Russian folk songs often break into the mix. Rather curiously, I don't detect any hint of Prokofiev. And yet both composers were lifelong friends from their early days in the St Petersburg Conservatory. They often worked together, swapping musical ideas. A number of Prokofiev works owe their title to Myaskovsky. Listening to Myaskovsky is like a journey into russian culture, its soil, its soul, its people.

[Symphonic Addict]

You're taking seriously this symphonic traversal, André. Very good.

I also felt the Symphony No. 5 special, but not the 4 so at all. I vaguely was hooked, but not as much as I wanted. I recalled that from No. 14 on they were really exceptional. If on the first half, I mean, the first 13 symphonies there is more striking music than expected or you remembered as purposeful, it's will be a nice idea to revisit the cycle. Nos. 15-17, 21-25, 27 are truly special to me. His mature and more wistful humour is more redolent of my likings, not to say the awesome violin and cello concertos respectively, but chamber and piano music (though I'm not a big fan of that part of his output, but that's just me).

[amw]

For me all the best symphonies are in the first half: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13. But there are a few symphonies that don't quite succeed overall for me but have really special and worthwhile slow movements: 11, 20, 25, 27.

[Irons]

You're taking seriously this symphonic traversal, André. Very good.

+1

I will follow with interest and dip in the box along the way. I prefer Miaskovsky in reflective mood.

[Maestro267]

Yay this thread lives again! I hope you enjoy the symphonies André! Thanks to this, I'm giving No. 8 another go right now.

For my traditional end-of-year playthrough of works I've discovered this year, I'm going to be going through 3 of these, as it's impossible to condense such a big cycle in just one work. While the individual works aren't quite decided yet, I'll simply be choosing one out of each "ten" of the cycle, so one from 1-9, another from 10-19 and a third from 20-27.

[André]

Reposted:

I count 6 recordings of the 6th symphony in the catalogue. Maybe there are more. It's very likely Myaskovsky's most popular work. And yet I prefer the 4th and 5th by virtue of what I believe is slightly stronger thematic material and a tighter structure. Not that there are any defects in the 6th. It's a bit like deciding between Tchaikovsky's 5th or 6th. The two inner movements seemed to me very successful, with a particularly spooky scherzo, at once lumbering and flighty. It calls to mind Bruckner (6th symphony) or even Malcolm Arnold (Tam O'Shanter). Svetlanov recorded the orchestra only version, eschewing the optional choral part. The Pathétique Overture that precedes the symphony on the disc is excellent. Apparently the powers that be hated it, so it was never performed again after its premiere in 1948.

[André]

Cross-posted.

Contrary to custom with the symphonies by Myaskovsky, the early one here (7) is much shorter than the late one (26). The latter was composed in a difficult period for Myaskovsky, when he was under heavy pressure from the soviet authorities to write music 'for the people' - meaning, folklore based. Maybe that's why I find the results largely commonplace, if not devoid of musical merit. No 7 otoh is a short but big-boned, dramatic work of great impact. I was captivated throughout. One of the best in the series.

[Maestro267]

No.7 is listed as being in B minor, but there's hardly any B minor in there at all. Plenty of bitonality, especially in that haunting opening.

[André]

Cross-posted

A mixed bag. Symphony no 8 seemed overlong to me, at least for its rather unmemorable thematic material. Expertly orchestrated to be sure, as one would expect. No 10 is its exact contrary, a one-movement, very concentrated work teeming with ideas and high in caffeine content. The effect is surprisingly modern, devoid of folk influences and acerbic in tone. Quite the jolt after the tired-sounding 8th symphony.

I'm wondering if I'm not a bit harsh on the 8th symphony. Any comments ?

[Maestro267]

I often find my mind tends to wander during listenings of the 8th Symphony.

[vandermolen]

Cross-posted

I'm wondering if I'm not a bit harsh on the 8th symphony. Any comments ?

I like the slow movement of No.8, once described as sounding like it had been written by 'a Russian Delius of the Steppes'.

[André]

I like the slow movement of No.8, once described as sounding like it had been written by 'a Russian Delius of the Steppes'.

Very true. I've relistened to the disc today (plus another time for no 10) and that slow movement does stand out. It's not the first time that Delius comes to mind in the slow movements of Myaskovsky's symphonies, in the writing for the winds in particular.

That 10th symphony is decidedly an event-packed affair. It's almost lisztian/baxian.

[André]

Must listen again to this pair. Slow movements in both cases are arrestingly beautiful.

On second listening the 9th symphony's stature grew substantially. It's not only the slow movement that is outstanding, but the first two as well. The first in particular has a searching, hesitating way that suggests a quest for some lost ideal. Beautiful. Only the finale (fourth movement) disappoints somewhat, as we come down from those lofty vistas to re-enter the realm of the ordinary world.

The 20th has a similarly solemn, hieratic slow movement. It is sandwiched between two spirited allegros. The last movement has a piquant folk tune as its centrepiece. It proceeds gaily to a spirited conclusion. In this particular case (and other such movements in Myaskovsky's symphonic output) it's natural to think that the composer happily culled from the vast russian musical heritage familiar from the works of Borodine, Kalinnikkov, Balakirev, Glazunov. Sometimes he would use genuine folk tunes, sometimes he would make up his own. This is a nicely structured wok with some memorable material. The 9th though has three truly outstanding movements to its credit. A nice disc.

[vandermolen]

I like this recording of No.8. I find Stankovsky's recordings a bit underrated. His No.6 is one of my favourite versions:

Article on the 10th Symphony.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/feb/18/symphony-guide-myaskovskys-tenth-tom-service

[André]

Wow, that's quite the analysis ! Fascinating reading, thank you Jeffrey ! I don't have any of Stankovsky's versions. They're rare and expensive.

[vandermolen]

Wow, that's quite the analysis ! Fascinating reading, thank you Jeffrey ! I don't have any of Stankovsky's versions. They're rare and expensive.

Glad you enjoyed it André.
You cannot go wrong with the Svetlanov set, which is terrific. It's worth hearing Alexander Gauk's version of Symphony 17 if you get the chance. His version of the valedictory No.27 is the most moving of all and infuriatingly never released on CD. I'm sorry that Brilliant didn't include it in one of their two Gauk boxed sets.

[André]

When I reach no 21 I'll compare Svetlanov with the much older (and faster) Ormandy on Sony. Other than that one it'll be Svetlanov's show all the way!

[vandermolen]

When I reach no 21 I'll compare Svetlanov with the much older (and faster) Ormandy on Sony. Other than that one it'll be Svetlanov's show all the way!

No.21 is, I think, the most recorded of all and one of the two which I have seen live. It was dedicated to the Chicago SO and my favourite version is with Morton Gould conducting the Chicago SO, coupled with Rimsky's fine 'Antar' Symphony, with which it shares similar thematic material. On CD it only seems to be available in a Morton Gould boxed set on RCA. Don't miss the David Measham recording on Unicorn André, usually available inexpensively online. It's a most eloquent and searching version.

[Maestro267]

Listening to No. 9. I wonder what it is that makes composers lose their grip on their skill and profundity during finales. You have three incredibly deep and profound movements and then a party emerges out of nowhere for no apparent reason. I might perhaps argue that No. 27 also suffers from this. You have two incredible movements, full of depth and weight, then your stereotypical major-key finale. It almost feels out of place. Lots of composers suffer from this. There's not many symphonies where the composers hold full control of their technical skills in how to carry a full, weighted symphonic argument across an entire edifice.

[Roy Bland]

Listening to No. 9. I wonder what it is that makes composers lose their grip on their skill and profundity during finales. You have three incredibly deep and profound movements and then a party emerges out of nowhere for no apparent reason. I might perhaps argue that No. 27 also suffers from this. You have two incredible movements, full of depth and weight, then your stereotypical major-key finale. It almost feels out of place. Lots of composers suffer from this. There's not many symphonies where the composers hold full control of their technical skills in how to carry a full, weighted symphonic argument across an entire edifice.

I can't agree: Myasovsky wrote 27 while he was dying. IMHO the last movement is personal answer against illness.