Symphony No. 5 (Myaskovsky)

N. Ya. Myaskovsky conceived the Fifth Symphony after the Fourth - in 1914, when the composer's plans envisioned a “silent symphony ( E , G , D ?) In four parts; Andante is mysterious with the main theme of a lullaby ” ^[1] , or, according to T. N. Livanova , even earlier - in 1912 ^[2] . But according to the time frame, the Fourth Symphony was created inside the Fifth. Both symphonies were composed in Petrograd on December 20, 1917, when Myaskovsky served in the naval general headquarters located in the Admiralty . The Fifth Symphony included many themes composed during the First World War , and one of them was a recording of the Rusyns ' carol “made under Lviv ^[3] . At the same time, N. Ya. Myaskovsky worked hard on the unfulfilled plan of the opera The Idiot based on the novel of the same name by F. M. Dostoevsky and, together with P. P. Suvchinsky, composed the libretto ^[4] . The composer graduated from the clavier on April 5, 1918, the orchestration was completed in the summer of that year ^[5] .

The score and author's arrangement for piano four hands were first published in 1923 by the publishing house of the Muzsector of the State Publishing House ^[5] . Reprints of the score came out in 1926 and 1938, new editions were published by the publishing house of the SSK orchestrotech (1948) and Muzgiz (1953) ^[6] . P. A. Lamm arranged the symphony for 2 pianos with 8 hands, there are also arrangements for the 3rd part of the composition by I. Petrov for wind band, A. Alyavdina for piano two hands (Mussector of the State Publishing House, 1927) and V. Kryukov for a small orchestra (Muzgiz, 1932) ^[5] . In February 1938, the composer made corrections when reprinting the score ^[7] .

Myaskovsky’s fifth symphony consists of 4 parts lasting from 32 minutes performed by Gennady Rozhdestvensky for up to 36 minutes directed by Konstantin Ivanov:

• I. Allegro amabile
• II. Lento (quasi andante)
• III. Allegro burlando
• IV. Allegro risoluto e con brio

Official Soviet musicology positively and favorably appreciated the Fifth Symphony, attributing the composition to the boundary of various creative periods and regarding it as the best symphonic work by Myaskovsky ^[8] . T. N. Livanova singled out the stronger, more vital and brighter Fifth Symphony from a number of previous works of the “stuffy environment of St. Petersburg and Moscow decadence” ^[9] , was surprised at the unexpectedness of the first major symphony of the composer who returned from the war, discovered its novelty and strong ties with the traditions of “The Mighty ” heaps ” ^[8] , noted the closeness of her bright mood to the lyrics of N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov and A. K. Lyadov ^[2] . According to T. N. Livanova, after the performance of the Fifth Symphony in Vienna in 1928, “criticism noted her Russian character and national origin by her themes ^[10] .

According to I.F. Kunin , on the first successful performance of the Fifth Symphony on July 18, 1920, “the Soviet symphony begins its reckoning ” ^[11] . Thanks to the efforts of Malko, the general public warmly welcomed the charming music of the composition, combining freshness and depth with accessibility. However, according to Kunin, the closest friends of the composer and participants in musical evenings in Lamm’s apartment B. B. Asafiev, P. A. Lamm, V. M. Belyaev expressed more restrained assessments: “Her relative simplicity, her intimacy seemed, apparently something primitive. From Myaskovsky they expected something completely different - complex in the course of thought, sharp and new in musical techniques ” ^[12] .

Among the foreign conductors who showed interest in the Fifth Symphony in June 1923, S. A. Kusevitsky also expressed a desire to perform the composition ^[13] . Prokofiev wrote to Myaskovsky that Kusevitsky remembered how the composer played his opus in Russia and spoke positively of him. Myaskovsky, who had high demands on his own work, regretted choosing a fashionable conductor: “<...> she is very primitive and a little vulgar (except for my beloved Andante )”, and offered to perform the Sixth or Seventh Symphony ^[14] in return. In January 1924, Prokofiev and Borovsky played the four-handed composition to Kusevitsky, when the conductor reacted coldly to the Fifth Symphony and refused to play it in Paris , after which Prokofiev wrote a letter to Myaskovsky with a sharp criticism of the instrument’s instrumentation - a rare, if not the only ^{[K 2 ]} .

Evaluation of the opinion of Prokofiev by Kunin: “He resolutely rejected the Fifth Symphony by S. S. Prokofiev,” may be called into question ^[12] . The musicologist ignored an important emphasis when Myaskovsky’s closest friend and junior colleague exclaimed: “Yes! in this symphony Glazunov ’s clumsy, deadening influence! ”,“ God, what a hopeless Glazunov! ”referred his remarks to the instrumentation:“ By attacking you like that, I don’t say a word about the music of the fifth symphony, I only speak about writing techniques and orchestration . Let’s take 5 or 6 (I’m not touching on rhythm or music, but only on orchestration and manner of embodying thought). ” The Fifth Symphony "on folk themes, made in the popular," folk "style. <...> And yet, even in a folk thing, one cannot turn to Glazunov ” ^[15] .

Prokofiev made sharp remarks about the Fifth Symphony during the search for a more sophisticated chromatized style of the early 1920s ^[16] , one of the most complex compositions of that time can be created in the summer of 1924, Quintet , op. 39. The next period of Prokofiev’s work was characterized by a search for “new simplicity”.

In January 1924, almost 6 years after the end of the symphony and 2 years after returning to peaceful life, in a response letter, Myaskovsky briefly outlined the circumstances of the creation of the composition, when the meager rations were aggravated by intellectual hunger, the lack of musical exchange, and the inability to listen to the composition in orchestra performance. “You are absolutely right, and Kusevitsky is also right - of course, it cannot be played in Paris from the point of view of a musician, that is, from a real art. There is an abyss of Glazunov in it, an abyss of flat sounds in it and, in general, it does not represent anything objectively valuable to me, and the first theme of the finale is even just disgusting. But, subjectively, I love something in it - a rare fluidity of music for me, especially in the two middle parts. The instrumentation of it, I repeat, is ordinary, and in some places (1st part - 2nd theme, final) is very flat. Nevertheless, the symphony here, when performed, always makes an excellent impression, and the final white notes of the finale should be exactly that way - it’s just a chorale anthem and sounds infuriatingly deafening, albeit provincial. However, enough about her. <...> Worst of all, both the 7th and 6th (instrumented later) - all bear the imprint: firstly, of my non-possession of the orchestra in general, and secondly, of the incredible intellectual hunger in which we have been these years lived, and now we live ” ^[15] .

Kunin wrote that, unlike the composer's peers, the younger generation had a different perception of the symphony: “In the music of Myaskovsky, young musicians captured something close and necessary to them” ^[17] . It was not surprising for D. B. Kabalevsky that during the period of striving for the complexity of writing, “Prokofiev did not feel the fresh breath of this composition, its deep humanity, the vivid vitality of its images, but condemned the outward simplicity of the prevailing methods of expression in it” ^[18] .

D. V. Zhitomirsky described his perception with the following words: “I personally recall the indelible impression of Myaskovsky’s music, starting from the first performances of the 5th symphony: I really liked the gloomy, heavy and powerful (a little bit from Mussorgsky ) side part of the first part, the gloomy energy of the finale carried away, liked the tart harmonies of the slow part, creating sensations of hot, but “hidden” lyricism ” ^[19] .

Subsequently, the performance of the Sixth Symphony somewhat overshadowed the success and great importance of the Fifth. Nevertheless, “soft, but by no means devoid of dramatic chiaroscuro, lyricism, its inner poise and some objectivity” were embodied in the late work of Myaskovsky ^[17] .

Mikhail Segelman wrote about the macrocyclicity characteristic of the composer's creative thinking, the most typical case of which is the symphonic triad, for example, “The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Symphonies are marked by the unity of intonational-dramatic development” ^[20] .

• 1920 - July 18, the first performance in Moscow under the direction of N. A. Malko ^[5] . There are indications of a different date for the premiere: August 18 ^[21] . Later in Moscow, the composition was performed on September 25, 1922 ^[22] and February 24, 1924 in concerts of the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by E. A. Cooper ^[23]
• 1926 - for the first time in the USA in Philadelphia on January 2 and 4 and in New York on January 5, the Fifth Symphony was performed by the Philadelphia Orchestra conducted by Leopold Stokowski ^[24] , followed by the Chicago premiere of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducted by Frederick Stock ^[25]
• 1934 - January 10 in Liverpool under the direction of N. A. Malko ^[26]

On March 1924, the London premiere was scheduled for the 1923/24 season of Promenade Concerts under the direction of Henry Wood , but the performance was removed from the program ^[27] . Inaccurate data by G. M. Schneerson ^[28] gave reason to S. I. Shlifshtein to erroneously believe that in the 1923/24 season, Henry Wood presented the premiere of the Fifth Symphony in London ^[29] , which was also mentioned by I. F. Kunin: “ Following Moscow, they heard her in London (conducted by G. Wood) ” ^[12] , but the performance scheduled for March 8, 1924 did not take place ^[30] .

• 1937 - III. Allegro burlando performed by the MALEGOT Orchestra conducted by B.E. Khaikin
• 1953 - GSO of the USSR under the direction of K.K. Ivanov , release on a plate D 01446-7 ^[31]
• 1982 - GSO of the Ministry of Culture under the direction of G. N. Rozhdestvensky , Russian Revelation RV 10069 (1996)
• 1992 - BBC Symphony Orchestra conducted by Edward Downes ( Sir Edward Downes ), Marco Polo 8.223499 (1993) ^[32]
• 1991-1993 - The State Academic Symphony Orchestra of Russia under the direction of E. F. Svetlanov , recording from the Great Hall of the Moscow Conservatory , issues:
  • "Russian disk" RDCD 00656 (2001) ^[33]
  • Olympia - Myaskovsky Complete Symphonic Works Vol. 5 OCD 735 (2002) ^[34]
  • Warner Classic 2564 69689-8 (2007) ^[35]

Symphony No. 4 (Myaskovsky)

• Ikonnikov A. A. The artist of our days N. Ya. Myaskovsky. - Ed. 2nd add. and revised .. - M .: Soviet composer, 1982. - 448 p. - 10,000 copies. (1st edition 1966)
• Kunin I.F. Birth of Soviet symphonism // N. Ya. Myaskovsky. Life and creativity in letters, memories, critical reviews. - 2nd, add. - M .: Soviet composer, 1981. - 190 p. - 10,000 copies. (1st edition 1969)
• Livanova T.N. N. Ya. Myaskovsky. Creative way. - M .: Muzgiz, 1953. - 408 p. - 5,500 copies.
• N. Ya. Myaskovsky. Articles. Letters. Memoirs: in 2 volumes / Myaskovsky N. Ya .; Ed., Comp. and note. S.I. Shlifshtein . - 1st ed. - M .: Soviet composer, 1959. - T. 1. - 360 p. - 1,450 copies.
• N. Ya. Myaskovsky. Articles. Letters. Memoirs: in 2 volumes / Myaskovsky N. Ya .; Ed., Comp. and note. S.I. Shlifshtein . - 1st ed. - M .: Soviet composer, 1960. - T. 2. - 590 p. - 1,450 copies.
• S. S. Prokofiev , N. Ya. Myaskovsky. Correspondence / Entry. article by D. B. Kabalevsky ; comp. and sub. text by M. G. Kozlova and N. R. Yatsenko; comm V. L. Kiseleva; foreword and pointers M. G. Kozlova. - M .: Soviet composer, 1977 .-- 600 p.

• Symphony No. 5, op. 18 Nikolay Myaskovsky: sheet music of the work at the International Music Score Library Project
• Myaskovsky N. Symphony No. 5 (Neopr.) . Dirigent.pro. Date of appeal September 26, 2017.
• Fifth Nikolai Myaskovsky Symphony on YouTube - BBC Symphony Orchestra conducted by Edward Downs