Search - Nikolai Myaskovsky, Evgeny Svetlanov, Russian Federation Adademic Symphony :: Myaskovsky: Complete Symphonic Works, Volume 8: Symphonies Nos. 8 & 10

Oh Nikolai, how you ramble....

Evan Wilson | Cambridge, MA | 02/24/2003

(2 out of 5 stars)

"Nikolai Myaskovsky wrote an astonishing 27 symphonies, of which only two (Nos. 6 and 21) hang around the fringes of the repertoire. This disc gives a good idea of why this is so, as well as a hint of what might have been.The meat on this disc is the 52 minute long 8th symphony, written in the mid-1920s before the Stalinists clamped down and forced the composer into a simpler style. It contains several arresting ideas but is way too long for its content. The worst offender is the opening movement (a problem which I've noted in several other Myaskovsky symphonies as well). The introduction contains a fascinating theme in the winds which promptly disappears for 13 minutes before reappearing as an echo in the quiet coda. In between we're treated to a movement with two reasonably decent ideas which the composer has no idea how to develop whatsoever. In fact, this is a huge problem throughout the piece. Myaskovsky tends to repeat his material over and over again with no variation in rhythmic, harmonic or melodic contour, hoping that some variation in orchestration will cover this fact. It doesn't.The scherzo that follows has some potential, as it and the ensuing trio are written in 7/4 time. But here, Myaskovsky can't extend any of his ideas beyond a single bar line so the piece feels like a series of short unrelated comments repeated one after another with no variation. This is really annoying in the trio because we keep hoping the ideas will bloom into lovely melody ala Rachmaninov. No such luck.The adagio is the best thing in this piece, with a lovely english horn melody over a tolling bass leading to more impassioned material. Again, there's little development, but the thematic content is so attractive that we don't care. Unfortunately, this isn't true of the finale which contains material looks better on the page than it sounds. Moreover, Myaskovsky's lack of harmonic strength results in an ending that is abrupt and unconvincing despite its volume.Some judicious pruning might tighten the piece up, but nothing will save it from Svetlanov's leaden tempos. These combined with the grey sound make large parts of this difficult listening. Frankly, it sounds as if Svetlanov is not convicned of the merits of the piece and his orchestra is under-rehearsed. It's too bad, because in the right hands this piece might merit an occasional performance, if for nothing else than to hear the adagio.The 10th symphony has the merit of being in one 16 minute movement, but it's a harsh, brassy piece that is not immediately appealing. Myaskovsky's inability to develop his material is less damaging here, but the material isn't terribly strong. Again, Svetlanov sounds dutiful rather than committed.Those interested in Myaskovsky would do to search out his gorgeous Cello Concerto, the 21st symnphony and some of the string quartets. His 25th symphony is an attractive work, as well, but you have to put up with the tedious, bombastic 1st to get it on Olympia. Try the library for this one."

The best and the worst of Myaskovsky's Music.

David A. Hollingsworth | Washington, DC USA | 04/26/2003

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Though my admiration and even love towards Myaskovsky and his music continue to blossom (my reviews are testaments to this), there are places where his music beg for better thematic invention, development, & more memorable moments when listeners can quite literally hum along & hum even during bedtime (or even during lunch...or whenever). The reviewers on this page definitely have a point in regards to the weaknesses of the Eighth Symphony, composed in 1925. It is not a bad piece per se, and there are good, if not impressive moments throughout. But the worst of this Symphony is that there's a lack of development and melodic distinctiveness in the outer movements that successfully enter one ear and exit the other. The scherzo is good, though not as adventurous and enticing as such in the Ninth. In essence, the squareness in the writing is apparent and it takes an excellent and a highly experienced conductor and great orchestra (and/or one accustomed to tedious, seemingly endless rehersals) to disguise some of the squareness: which is what Svetlanov and his fine Russian Federation Symphony Orchestra are very much able to accomplish, more successfully in fact than Stankovsky and his Slovak forces in a Marco Polo recording. So, whereas the outer movements are quite bland, and quite uncharacteristically so, the best of the Symphony is the middle movement, which by itself is another story. It is a magical movement, haunting and introspective in temperament and quite vivid as well as arresting in a Baxian sense. And that quiet vividness and picturialism are very well caught by Svetlanov et al. But, overall the music, as Ikonnikov puts it, remains fairly abstruse.



The Tenth Symphony (1927) fares better, if short of measuring to the finely wrought & intriguing Thirteenth. It's nevertheless an interesting piece, well constrasted between the uneasy tender and the distraught. It's a powerful work and highly complex, pretty much in the neighborhood of Popov's First and Shostakovich's Fourth Symphonies. But it's unconventionalism taxed the infamous conductorless Persymfans Orchestra (Pervyi Symfonichesky Ansambl) to the point of disaster in its 1927 premiere in Moscow. This work is met with great anticipation by Svetlanov and his orchestra, who make a more convincing case of it than Rabl & the Vienna Radio Symphony Orchestra (Orfeo), though the latter is compelling in its own right.



Still, with all intents and purposes involved, this disc is quite indispensible, for this ongoing series will be incomplete without it."

Oh Nikolai, how you are misunderstood

I. J. J. Nieuwland | Amsterdam | 04/04/2003

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Miaskovski has seldom offered instant gratification. His most often played works are of the kind generally engendered by decades of Stalinist opression and humiliating 'self-criticism'. Miaskovski's most interesting works, however, are those that either precede the terror or that are too 'small' to get noticed by the authorities. It took me about a year to get accustomed to the sounds of his 7th and 10th symphonies (on Marco Polo), but then the idiom just seemed to fall into place. These two symphonies are both of lasting quality, and I cannot share the criticism either on the opening movement or on Miaskovski's alleged inability to develop his material. If anything the material wears a bit thin in places and it is exactly his development of it that saves the piece and turns it into something very likeable (if you take the time for it). You can blame him for relying to much on craftsmanship instead of melody. But hey, you can say the same thing about half of Beethoven.
The playing by Svetlanov et al. is admittedly a bit rough, but some blame must go to the sound engineers, who seem to have place some microphones rather too close to the brass players - some delicate woodwind parts in the tenth go almost unheard. Not a bad investment at all, although you might want to wait for the new Melodiya/Olympia Miaskovsky cycle that is currently being released."