Myaskovsky: Very mysterious and contradictory figure 2 symphonies before 1917.

e 1917. 30 years of professorship at Moscow Conservatoire the musical conscience of Moscow. Father of the Soviet Symphony 27 Symphonies! Was taught by Rimsky-Korsakov at Saint Petersburg Conservatoire where he was a good friend with Prokofiev. 20s and 30s leading Soviet composer dedicated to developing basically traditional, sonata-based forms. One of the leaders of the ACM (Association for Contemporary Music) interest in avant-garde music. Met with opposition rom RAPM and was abolished in 1932 by the Decree on the Reformation of Literary and Artistic Organisations. Symphony No. 6 inspired by the events of 1917-21. Tragic. Most sincere document of its time. Years of experimentation: 21-33 Tenth and Thirteenth symphonies (13 most experimental only work to be premiered in US!) The next few years after 1933 are characterised by his apparent discontinuation of this trend (funnily enough from 1941 (S 21) 1951, won three Stalin Prizes!) Symphony No. 21 one movement/ very lyrical and harmonically different. Myaskovsky tried not to get involved with the Soviet state and engage in confrontation with Stalin. Myaskovsky was warded the Stalin Prize three times! However, was condemned in 48 purges. Zhdanov Decree Wasnt rehabilitated until after his death in 50.

*** Compares the 12th symphony to the 5th (written just after the revolution before rules were strict ) *** STYLE: Individualist: Not the kind of composer the Revolution would like reflects what he wants; his personal feelings! Sixth: finale relies on contrast between songs of the French revolution and old Russian sacred chant O rasstavanii dushi s telom. Forced tribute to Soviet officialdom. Inner emigration spiritual resistance (never took the form of active dissidence) 6: intellectual outbursts 7: abyss of subjectivism- 10: morbid expressionism. 13: symphony of torments. His best, but insufficiently objective symphonies, failed to conform to the canonized genre of the optimistic tragedy thus were excluded from the concert repertory (so one of the main targets for 48 resolution!)

Two trends emerged (from the start of the 5th!) 5th 8th 12th 14th 16th and later 30s- 40s. (Resembling suites coming closest to the lyrical style of Bodorin and Rimsky-Korsakov!) 6th 7th 10th 13th. The vast symphonic output forms a unique biography of the composer his works are seen as various experiments in form, texture and melody. The interesting thing with Myaskovsky is that he doesn't form a canonic, timeline of evolution and change. His output seems to switch between these different styles and approaches to composition. However, (because of Paulines letter) was this completely intentional did he really just write exactly how he wanted and did he like the switching? (He compares to similar works: 5th and 12th and says he doesnt like them!) Wasn't completely happy with his creative output and self-expression. 30s start of the totalitarian empire what was he to do? CHANGES coincidence or intentional? Sincere or under pressure? 13th: 1932 liner-constructivist attempt at destroying tonality as he wrote his autobiography farewell to last years of modernism and expressionism. 21st symphony: most masterful but shows the duality of his existence. With the Soviet propaganda and forced writing: Shos angry and ironic music Prokofiev: foreign experience Myaskovsky: silent suffering constant battle between the inner and outer self. No wonder that in the Soviet Union the Sixth Symphony was virtually forbiddenit certainly did not fit the idea of a model Soviet composer, who should greet the Revolution without any doubts With such enormous output, is his music any good? (His symphonies arent at the classical scale of Haydn ect. they are lengthy and use large forces!) The best of hia works are of lasting quality and emotional force. Programmatic 12th! http://www.myaskovsky.ru/?id=35 http://www.myaskovsky.ru/?id=43 Style periods: (Don't completely trust this dodgy source! Music up to end of WWI a first period 4 13 second period and everything else third. (12 is an exception though!) 1. P1: Emotionally depressing, influence from Tchaikovsky quite often dissonant but no real evidence of contact with Impressionism. Tonally

firm. 2. P2: Bitonality more dissonance strange endings. Evidence of contact with 20th-century movements (expressionism/ impressionism!) 3. P3: Strong 19th-century Russian influence. More emphasis on craftsmanship. Without doubt a cosmetic change and softening. The main question is: A POLITICAL FIAT OR HIS OWN PERSONAL DESIRE? Lecture: Schwarz idea of regimentation: RAPM discredited all modernism = bourgeois decadence. Mood of the country was not geared to experiment. Advanced composers turned conventional conventional composers turned ordinary. SELF CONSERVATISM! Taruskin suggested that the quality of Soviet composition suffered (composers were forced to complete feeble imitations of traditional styles!) Assumptions of this analysis: From the late 1920s composers had to duly modify their styles (referring to bland idioms) to escape censor and hostility. Socialist Realism. Soviet music would have probably developed differently cut off from modern West (serialism ect Would all composers genuinely have wished to persue modernist experimentation? Patrick says no because it wasnt happening in England ect. BUT there was serialism in the postShostakovich era People brought in own manuscripts made themselves ect. SO musicians clearly were not completely opposed by Western ideas!) The source of our knowledge (is it distorted in any way is so why?) Myaskovsky 1929-32 increased pressure from RAPM abandon modernist style. Encouraged to write Symphony no. 12 choral work celebrating Stalinist project as a way to reform. Patrick interprets Ms letter to Viktorovich as sarcastic, patronising, like he is mocking him for ever thinking he is struggling at writing the symphony. BUT he does later say he is ashamed of the work reminds him of 5. Could he be being serious? Very push over person another symphony has fully matured in my mind and awaits my attention (decent 13th) I feel that I should hurry if I am still to compose something which would afford me complete creative satisfactionwhich, I must confess, I have never experienced fully with a single work of mine

Letter to Prokofiev does say he is unhappy with other styles like French, German and Stravinsky (All European) however! Schwarz and Taruskin the resolution signified the end of an era of flexibility and inaugurated one of regimentation. I think the 12th symphony was successful RAPM rejoiced and immediately began to promote it. M said to his friend (April 6th 1932) - "I am doing my best to sabotage the performance of my 12th symphony, which they want to turn into an event For me, the 12th symphony is a compromise, and in private Im ashamed of it, in the same way I used to be ashamed of the 5th. Perhaps this touch of banality will later grant it the kind of life that has been refused to my bestsymphonies. Patricks view: Mayakovsky wrote exactly what he wanted. The 12th cannot be seen as an artistic concession to RAPM or anything else, as it has such strong links with the 5th (1918) subtle mockery in letter no intention of gratifying RAPMs demands no artistic compromise at all! Conservatism was a valid choice for the 30s (England!) But Marina shows how was ambivalent towards both the 5th and 12th! MODERNISM v CONSERVATISM argument is invalid this kind of jolly socialist writing was present in his style early on, from the 5th. So it doesn't tie in with the battle of the 20s and 30s trends/ neo-classicism ect. Symphonism conference of 35 no Myaskovsky work was recognised (despite shit loads of symphonies by that point!) Socialist Realism did he ever try and conform to that? What is it? Problems with the definition!? AS HE DIED THREE YEARS BEFORE STALIN, AND BEFORE THE THAW, WE DONT KNOW IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A NOTICEABLE CHANGE IN HIS MUSIC Stockholm syndrome: Dealing with oppression by becoming very conservative.