Download Conrad Comparing and Contrasting Sergei Lyapunov`s First and

Comparing and Contrasting Sergei Lyapunov’s First and Second Symphonies
Nikitas Conrad
History of the Symphony
Dr. Patrick Smith
November 3, 2014
Conrad 1
Comparing and Contrasting Sergei Lyapunov’s First and Second Symphonies
Full of dark Russian angst and heaviness, yet capable of light sweeping passages
and beauty, the two symphonies of Sergei Lyapunov run underrated in the corpus of
symphonic literature, much like the prominence of their composer. The first, in B minor,
was completed in 1887 and the second and final symphony in B flat minor was
completed in 1917. They have not been performed much, but they were heavily
advocated and performed by Russian conductor and composer Yevgeny Svetlanov. In
this paper, I will examine the character and form of each symphony, while searching for
differences in compositional style, keeping in mind the 30 year difference of their
completion.
Before we examine his symphonies, we should first become familiar with the life
of the composer. Sergei Lyapunov was a Russian late Romantic composer and pianist.
He was born on November 30, 1859 in a town called Yaroslavl, which is approximately
160 miles to the northeast from Moscow. His brother, Alexander Lyapunov, would later
become a significant and renowned mathematician, taking after their father. Sergei’s
mother was a casual pianist, which most likely influenced his decision to take up music.
During his childhood, Lyapunov’s family moved from Yaroslavl to Nizhny Novgorod,
Conrad 2
where he joined classes at the local Russian Musical Society. In 1878, Lyapunov began
studies at the Moscow Conservatory after being invited by its director, Nikolai
Rubinstein, the younger brother of Anton Rubinstein. His primary teachers were Sergei
Taneyev for composition and Karl Klindworth for piano. Taneyev had studied with Pyotr
Illyich Tchaikovsky and Klindworth had been a student of Franz Liszt. While in Moscow,
Lyapunov realized his greater affinity for the more nationalistic Russian music of Mily
Balakriev, Alexander Borodin, Modest Mussorgsky, and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov rather
that the more western European compositional style of Tchaikovsky and of the Moscow
Conservatory. With this affinity being his guide, Lyapunov moved to St. Petersburg in
1884 to begin studies with Balakriev, the leader and central figure of “The Five”.
Balakriev was a strong proponent of Russian nationalist music, shunning western
classical music and musical academics, advocating a more natural compositional
approach. He was a controlling and despotic teacher who tried to mold his students’
styles after his own. Because of this, Lyapunov’s compositional style is comparable to
Balakriev’s. However, Lyapunov’s style is unique in the way he develops his themes.
Lyapunov held positions in the Imperial Chapel, the Elena Institute, the Free School of
Music, the St. Petersburg Conservatory, and the State Institute of Art.
Conrad 3
Apart from his composition, Lyapunov toured as a brilliant pianist and conductor.
In addition to his two symphonies, Lyapunov composed a set of 12 Transcendental
Etudes (dedicated to his grandteacher Lizst), 30 Russian Folksongs, 8 Mazurkas, two
piano concerti, a piano sextet, a piano sonata, 3 Valse-Impromptus, and a symphonic
poem titled Hashish, among a multitude of other works. He died in Paris on November
8, 1924.
The First Symphony was composed by Lyapunov in St. Petersburg under the
instruction of Balakriev. It had its premiere on April 11, 1888, under the baton of none
other than Balakriev. It is scored for 3 flutes, oboe, English horn, 2 clarinets in A, bass
clarinet, 2 bassoons, 4 horns in F, 2 trumpets in B, 2 tenor trombones, 1 bass trombone,
tuba, 4 timpani, and strings. It is composed with the standard four movements.
Movement I is titled Andantino - Allegro con spirito, Movement II Andante sostenuto,
Movement III Scherzo: Allegretto vivace, and Movement IV Finale: Allegro molto. A
typical performance lasts about 40 minutes. It is dedicated, not surprisingly, to Mily
Balakriev.
Movement I begins with a strong opening motive in the horns, which is
subsequently answered by the strings. This figure repeats, with a short development of
the motive in the strings. There is then a short duet featuring flute and English horn,
Conrad 4
accompanied by pizzicato strings. Following this, the theme is played among the winds,
after which the theme is developed in the strings before reaching an early peak.
Following this is a stagnant, tranquil section with action in the winds, with chromatic
string accompaniment. The movement continues on in a similar style, dramatic at times
and lush at other times, always rich and full of emotion. An epic journey by a solitary
hero through the Russian countryside could be called to mind. John France praises the
construction of this movement, saying that it “epitomizes much of Lyapunov's craft and
skill in composing: good development, varied orchestration and contrast.” (France) The
original motive is heard throughout the piece, albeit with different instrumentation and
different statements of it, therefore keeping it fresh. The first movement climaxes
brilliantly, ending with a barrage of timpani and brass. Movement I seems to be the
movement with the most emphasis in the symphony.
The exquisite second movement opens with the clarinets and bassoons, before
moving to a beautiful pastoral melody in the strings. The winds then get their turn,
accompanied by a shimmering string section. The overall character is mournful and full
of sehnsucht, or intense longing. At times, it seems to float and at other times it is
grounded and heavy. It remains tranquil throughout, finishing softly in a similar way to
Conrad 5
its beginning. John France, in his review of the symphony, says this about it: “Perhaps
the slow movement is the heart of this work. Two excellent themes are given in the
opening pages and are developed with great skill. This is lovely stuff, which deserves to
be better known. There is even a touch of Elgarian expansiveness about one of these
themes. It results in a well constructed, and quite moving essay.” (France) This perfectly
sums up the essence of Movement II.
Movement III is more playful than the first two, which should be apparent from its
title, Scherzo. A light charming theme begins in the strings and is then passed between
different instruments. It sounds as if it would be right at home in a Tchaikovsky ballet.
John France affirms: “The third movement, a scherzo has a 'moto perpetuo' quality to it,
and as David Brown rightly suggests is redolent of the ballet stage”, adding, “the
orchestration and thematic development adds much to what on the face of it could be
unpromising material. It is one of those miniatures that one wishes would never end.”
(France) The lush middle section suggests images of a forest scene.
Movement IV is a return to the drama of Movement I, perhaps surpassing it. This
fiery finale also has moments of stillness, but always returns to the extreme expression
of emotion, building slowly to it. France describes this movement as “is full of life and
Conrad 6
vigour. There is great contrast in this movement with some harking back to earlier
moments in the symphony. However, there is always an underlying, if unstated, energy.”
(France) Much of this understated energy is in the form of pizzicato strings. The brass is
particularly prominent in this movement, sounding over restless strings.
The overall character of the First Symphony is heavy and dark, in line with
Lyapunov’s contemporaries in Russia. Each movement has its own distinctive mood, but
they fit together nicely, creating a complete work. After approximately 25 years of
writing in other genres, Lyapunov decided to write a second symphony.
Lyapunov’s Second Symphony was composed in 1917 during his time on faculty
at the St. Petersburg Conservatory. It is scored for 3 flutes and piccolo, 2 oboes, English
horn, piccolo clarinet, 2 clarinets, bass clarinet, 2 bassoons, contrabassoon, 6 F horns, 3
Bb trumpets, 3 trombones, tuba, timpani, triangle, tambourine, snare drum, cymbals,
bass drum, 2 harps, and strings. The addition of the extra percussion instruments and
harps should be noted, as they are lacking in the First Symphony. Each movement has
several tempo and character changes. Movement I is titled Largo - Allegro moderato,
Movement II Scherzo: Allegro vivace, Movement III Adagio, and Movement IV Finale:
Allegro molto, con strepito. It is worth noting the reversal of the inner movements. This
has been done before by other composers, but it is a change from his Symphony No. 1.
Conrad 7
A typical performance of Symphony No. 2 is approximately 50 minutes, 10 minutes
longer than the First. This symphony was dedicated to fellow composer and member of
Balakriev’s circle, Alexander Glazunov.
Movement I begins with a moody and atmospheric character, lacking the fire of
Symphony 1’s first movement. One can immediately hear the influence of Debussy.
Also apparent is lack of a strong tonal center, which makes sense for a piece composed
in 1917. However, this symphony remains very much romantic. After this slow
introduction, the movement goes into an allegro section with frantic strings and blaring
brass. The middle section is melancholy, slow, and peaceful; beginning with the strings
then moving to the winds. It increases in complexity and richness of texture, finally
giving way to moments of extreme sentiment. After the middle section, the tempo
quickens once again and transitions to an exhilarating Russian folk dance, before
returning to the original opening material. Calum MacDonald, in his description of the
movement says, “It opens with a chant-like chromatic motto, and by continual
transformations almost every theme in the Symphony derives fairly obviously from this
source, giving the work an obsessive, almost monothematic quality and lending a
certain mechanical inevitability to some of its working-out.” (MacDonald) One can
definitely hear the echoes of the original theme throughout the first movement. This
Conrad 8
movement, as compared to Movement I of the First Symphony seems more labored and
less heroic.
Movement II, the scherzo, is epic and exhilarating. It alternates between loud and
soft, maintaining its maniac energy and excitement in the quiet parts. The themes are
quickly passed through different instruments, rendering the effect of having a scattered
and chaotic quality of sound. MacDonald says, “There is some splendid music here –
the scherzo is a taut and furious invention.” (MacDonald) Again, it retains similar
thematic material throughout, while managing to hold interest and its whirling
excitement throughout.
In Movement III, Lyapunov returns to the wandering quality of the start of the
first Movement. It is lush and of a similar character to the slow movement of the First
Symphony. However, it is much more atmospheric and again shows influence from
Debussy, especially when the melodies are in the woodwinds. There are no immediately
striking melodies, but they are strung along with great skill.
The Movement IV Finale begins triumphantly, with exuberant string passages,
brass fanfare, and prominent percussion parts. It continues by going through sections
of soft chromatic meandering, but building back to the strong statements of themes. In
Conrad 9
the middle, there is a striking area of heavy brass solo areas. Following this, there is a
slow passage in the winds which is echoed by the strings with building figures in the
winds. The theme is then recapitulated in the trumpets then the strings. In contrast to
the First Symphony, which emphasizes its First Movement, this final movement seems to
be the focal part of Symphony No. 2.
After examining both symphonies, several conclusions can be drawn. The First
Symphony definitely seems to be grounded in late Russian Romanticism, while the
Second Symphony takes influence from more varied sources such as French
impressionism and the late German Romanticism of Richard Wagner and Richard
Strauss. However, the Second Symphony still has a decidedly Russian flavor. With the
addition of triangle, tambourine, snare drum, cymbals, bass drum, and harps, Lyapunov’s
Second Symphony is entering the realm of the modern symphony. Besides these
differences, Lyapunov’s style is similar. He develops themes in the same repetitive way,
while maintaining developmental interest. The lengths of both symphonies are typical
for their period.
As a symphonic writer, Lyapunov has a mastery of the form and superb
craftsmanship, but his symphonies are overshadowed by the Romantic symphonic
giants of Russia. His style can be repetitive, but never boring. Besides his symphonic
Conrad 10
works, Lyapunov should also not be overlooked for his compositions for piano, vocal,
and chamber music. While his symphonies are not masterpieces, they are excellent
examples of craftsmanship and of the late Romantic Russian nationalistic style of
Balakriev and his circle.
Conrad 11
Bibliography
France, John. "Sergei Lyapunov - Symphony No. 1." Review. June 2002: Music Web
International. Web. Oct. 2014.
Eggerking, Wolfgang. "Sergey Mikhaylovich Lyapunov | Symphonie Nr. 1 H-moll, Op.
12." Musikmph.de. N.p., n.d. Web.
Lyapunov, Sergei Mikhailovich., V. Sinaĭskiĭ, and Howard Shelley. LYAPUNOV Symphony
No. 1. Naxos Digital Services Ltd., 2007. MP3.
Lyapunov, Sergei Mikhailovich., Evgeny Svetlanov and The State Academy Symphony
Orchestra. LYAPUNOV Symphony No. 2. MP3.
McDonald, Calum. "Lyapunov: Symphony No. 2." Review. n.d.: n. pag. ClassicalMusic.com. Web. Oct. 2014.
Whitney, Ryan L. "Sergei Mikhailovich Liapunov." Sergei Mikhailovich Liapunov. N.p., 21
May 2013. Web. Oct. 2014.