Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.