Michael Kaykov Scriabin Etudes Dissertation

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS The Evolution of Alexander Scriabin’s Harmonic Language and Pianistic Textures Across his Etudes Op. 8, 42 and 65. by Mikhail Kaykov Thesis Advisor: Dr. Edward Green This thesis examines the evolution of Scriabin’s harmony and his treatment of pianistic textures across his Etudes Op. 8, 42 and 65, with the purpose of demonstrating that while Scriabin’s harmonies became increasingly complex in his middle and late period works, his approach to piano writing and the treatment of thematic material in his late period—in surprising counter-balance—became more minimalist. There will therefore be a focus on the significant shift of style from the middle period to the late period etudes.

In tracing the development of Scriabin’s etude writing, the following has become clear: the works of the early period display a complexity of pianistic figuration but not of harmony; the compositions of the middle period feature vagueness of harmony joined to complexity of figuration (while remaining fundamentally diatonic in their underlying harmonic structures); and the late period etudes, while employing an entirely new principle of pitch organization—one which breaks away from a basis in diatonic harmony—are at the same time notable for their sparseness of pianistic figuration.

The dissertation is divided into an introduction and eight chapters. The introduction features an initial comparison of works by Scriabin (not limited to the etudes) from his three stylistic periods. Chapter 1 is focused on Scriabin’s biography up until the start of his late period. This is important in order to understand what propelled Scriabin on his meteoric path of harmonic innovation, and how his early education and influences paved the way for it.

Chapter 2 is an overview of Scriabin’s Twelve Etudes Op. 8 and examines the pianistic texture of each etude, especially the various pianistic devices derived from Chopin’s piano music. Later in the chapter, Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8, No. 2—chosen because of its similarity to his Etude Op. 42, No. 2—is analyzed in detail, with a specific focus on its harmony.

Chapter 3 examines the Eight Etudes Op. 42. A general background on these etudes is presented and put in the context of Scriabin’s philosophical influences at the time. The pianistic techniques and textures of each etude are discussed, examining the evolution in piano writing from the Op. 8 set, followed by a detailed harmonic analysis of the Etude Op. 42, No. 2 in F-sharp minor.

ii

Chapter 4 presents background information on both mysticism and the specific philosophic viewpoint of theosophy. The ideas of mysticism are summarized by means of using some of the most highly-respected English writings on the subject: by Evelyn Underhill and Walter Terence Stace. Those of theosophy will be culled from the writings of its most prominent advocate, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Scriabin’s own writings, preserved in his notebooks, are likewise summarized and presented in the context of the core concepts of mysticism.

Chapter 5 provides background on the Three Etudes Op. 65 and their place in Scriabin’s overall creative output. It is focused on the circumstances—of his life and his thought—surrounding the composition of that set. It also gives a general overview of Scriabin’s new harmonic system, and how it most likely ought to be connected to general mystic ideas outlined in the previous chapter.

Chapter 6 traces, in more detail, the possible origins of Scriabin’s late period harmonic innovations. While mysticism certainly played a key factor in inspiring Scriabin’s new system of tonal organization, it was nevertheless—from a strictly abstract perspective—a synthesis of techniques found in earlier Russian music. Several important precursors of Scriabin’s mode of organizing harmony can be found in the works of Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and others. In turn, many of these harmonic ideas can be traced back even earlier to the music of Franz Liszt. This chapter will illustrate, with specific example, the various innovative techniques used by earlier Russian composers and how they relate to principles of tonal organization found in Scriabin’s late works.

Chapter 7 focuses on the new aspects of Scriabin’s harmony. The specific compositional techniques found in the each of the Three Etudes Op. 65 are shown to be connected with ideas of mysticism. The chapter begins with an overview of the entire opus before focusing in detail on one specific member of the set: Etude Op. 65, No. 3.

Lastly, Chapter 8 is a summary of the findings of this dissertation, and a presentation of possible directions for further research and analysis that arise from what is contained in it.

iii

A special thank you to

My parents; The Cirio Foundation; my major teacher, Dr. Marc Silverman; my thesis advisor, Dr. Edward Green; Dr. Inesa Sinkevych; Dr. Marjean Olson; and Dr. Jeffrey Langford:

for their support and guidance during my DMA studies.

iv

Copyright © 2020 Mikhail Kaykov All rights reserved v

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION. An Initial Comparison of Scriabin’s Early, Middle and Late Period Works.................................1

CHAPTER 1. The Early and Middle Period: Biographical Background...........................................................................19 1. The Increasing Influence of Philosophy..................................................................................................24 2. The Belaieff Circle.............................................................................................................................................30 3. The Influence of Chopin.................................................................................................................................33 4. Background on the Composition Process of the Twelve Etudes Op. 8......................................35 CHAPTER 2. The Pianistic Textures in Scriabin’s Twelve Etudes Op. 8 and the Influence of Chopin...............38 1. Elements of Scriabin’s Early Style, as Evidenced in his Etude Op. 8, No. 2...............................56 CHAPTER 3. Eight Etudes Op. 42: An Overview.......................................................................................................................69 1. The Stylistic Evolution from Op. 8 to Op. 42.........................................................................................74 2. Eight Etudes Op. 42: The Pianistic Techniques....................................................................................75 3. Analysis of the Etude Op. 42, No. 2 in F-sharp minor........................................................................84 4. Rhythmic Complexity and the Perception of Harmony....................................................................87 5. The Form of the Etude Op. 42, No. 2.........................................................................................................90 CHAPTER 4. Mysticism and Theosophy: A Background.......................................................................................................92 1. The Silver Age.....................................................................................................................................................97 2. The Mysterium and the Late Piano Works............................................................................................98 CHAPTER 5. Background on the Three Etudes Op. 65........................................................................................................102 1. The Three Etudes Op. 65: Their Place in Scriabin’s Output.........................................................104 CHAPTER 6. Possible Sources of Inspiration for Scriabin’s Late-Period Harmonic Innovations.....................111 1. Harmonic Progressions Based on the Tritone Relationship........................................................113 2. The Use of Non-Diatonic Scales................................................................................................................120 CHAPTER 7. The 3 Etudes Op. 65: An Overview....................................................................................................................123 1. Etude Op. 65, No. 2........................................................................................................................................128 2. The Form of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3......................................................................................................134 3. Harmonic Analysis of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3...................................................................................137 CHAPTER 8. Conclusion. The Evolution of Scriabin’s Etudes Throughout his 3 Stylistic Periods...................158 1. Implications for Further Research..........................................................................................................163

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................................................166 VITA...........................................................................................................................................................................................................172

vi

1

Introduction. An Initial Comparison of Scriabin’s Early, Middle and Late Period Works

Throughout his life, Scriabin’s harmonic language underwent an evolution. His earliest works were inspired by the compositions of Chopin, specifically their abundant use of dominant seventh chords with added dissonances. Likewise, Scriabin was influenced by Chopin’s innovative pianistic textures and voice-leading techniques.

Scriabin’s early output (until roughly 1900) contained many works in the genres which Chopin earlier employed: namely, the Mazurka, Waltz, Impromptu, Prelude, Etude, and Nocturne. Scriabin assimilated many of Chopin’s ideas pertaining to texture, chord spacing, and contrapuntal figuration.

In 1921, in an essay published in “Revue Musicale,” Boris de Schloezer, Scriabin's brother in law, was the first to divide Scriabin’s works into three periods. 1 This thesis examines the evolution of Scriabin’s harmony across these three periods by means of a focus on the Etudes Op. 8 (published in 1895), Op. 42 (1904), and Op. 65 (1912).

One etude from each creative period will be analyzed in detail. It is important to start with a sample comparison of piano works selected from each of his three stylistic periods, in order to have a general overview of how Scriabin’s harmonic language and treatment of texture evolved.

Scriabin’s earliest work in the genre, the Etude in C-sharp minor, Op. 2, No. 1, was written in 1886, when he was fifteen years old (Ex. 1 on the following page). It was published in 1894, by the German publishing house Jurgenson. 2

1 2

Peter Sabbagh, The Development of Harmony in Scriabin's Works, USA Universal Publishers, 2003, 11.

This was shortly before Scriabin met the influential publisher Mitrofan Belaieff.

2

Of this work, Faubion Bowers writes in his book Scriabin, a Biography: “The popular Etude in C-sharp minor is almost Scriabin’s signature in the West. It is a contemplative, melancholy, searching piece whose simple ascending melody is underlined with plangent chords.”3 The texture of the Etude Op. 2, No. 1 is characteristic of Scriabin’s early period works.

Ex. 1. Scriabin Etude in C-sharp minor, Op. 2, No. 1 (composed in 1886) The most notable textural feature of this music is the extensive thumb crossing between the hands. Many of the notes cannot be held down by the fingers alone and must be prolonged by a skillful use of the pedal. This, in turn, results in more non-harmonic notes being captured on the pedal. It also naturally brings out the repeated-tone element in the left hand. The texture (along with the unconventional distribution of the notes between the hands) is therefore directly linked to the decisive issue of tone production.

When Alexander Siloti4 edited Scriabin’s Trois Morceaux, Op. 2 for publication by Carl Fischer Publishing in New York (see Ex. 2 on the next page), he unwisely eliminated all

3

Faubion Bowers, Scriabin, a Biography, New York, Dover, 1996, 1:136.

Pianist, conductor, and composer Alexander Siloti (1863-1945) was an esteemed student of Franz Liszt, and one of the piano teachers of Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873-1943).

4

3

the thumb crossing in this etude (and, in turn, most of the pedaling challenges) by redistributing notes into the right hand. 5

Ex. 2. Scriabin Etude in C-sharp minor, Op. 2, No. 1, Siloti edition Scriabin assimilated an important characteristic of Chopin’s piano writing by employing there, and in much of his early period music, a liberal use of the technique of thumb-crossing. The resulting widely-spaced figurations depend on pedaling in order to prolong the tone, which, in turn, creates a wider array of overtones than would arise when the notes are held with the fingers alone. This subtle effect will be absent if a performer uses Siloti’s edition.

The Chopin Prelude in A major, Op. 28, No. 7 (Ex. 3 on the following page) is one of many examples of Chopin’s use of interlocking thumbs in his textures. There, the left hand thumb goes over the right, even when a more conventional redistribution of notes between the hands could significantly ease the work's pianistic challenges.

5

Carl Fischer published the Siloti edition ca. 1929. It was later reprinted by an unidentified publisher and is now available online on IMSLP (accessed April 12, 2020). https://imslp.org/wiki/3_Pieces,_Op.2_(Scriabin,_Aleksandr)

4

Both Chopin and Scriabin often use thumb crossing as a device to highlight a certain register of the piano (creating unusual timbres). In Chopin’s Prelude in A major, Op. 28, No. 7, the high E played by the left hand thumb is emphasized in mm. 1, 2 and 4.

Ex. 3. Chopin Prelude in A major, Op. 28, No. 7 The careful voice-crossing which is prevalent in early Scriabin works also points to his desire to maintain meticulous voice leading within a subtly polyphonic texture. 6 Another important characteristic (which will be developed further in his later opuses) is the prominent use, within the texture of a composition, of the sonority of the open fourth (as shown in Ex. 4). The pianistic challenges posed by the unusual texture of Scriabin's Etude Op. 2, No. 1 are similar to those to be found later in his Etude in B-flat minor, Op. 8, No. 11 (Ex. 5 on the following page), to be discussed in Chapter 2.

Ex. 4. Scriabin Etude in C-sharp minor, Op. 2, No. 1

6

See Chapter 2 for specific examples.

5

Ex. 5. Scriabin Etude in B-flat minor, Op. 8, No. 11 Another distinctive trait of Scriabin's musical style—one that can be heard throughout his entire compositional output, and as early as the aforementioned Etude Op. 2, No. 1—is the use of dotted rhythms as a motivic element. Examples 4 and 5 present this quite notably.

Scriabin’s early works (through Op. 25) were recognized by his contemporaries as being inspired by Chopin’s compositions.7 This was also the case for other members of the Belaieff circle to which Scriabin belonged—most notably Liadov—who composed many works in the genres strongly associated with Chopin (more on this in Chapter 1). 8 The previous generation of Russian composers, such as Balakirev, likewise composed works in genres which Chopin pioneered, particularly the Mazurka. 9 Jim Samson writes in The Cambridge Companion to Chopin: “it is indeed arguable that the most productive legacy of Chopin 'the Slavonic composer' was not in Poland at all, but in Russia. There, his [considerable] impact was… inspirational in the formation of radical nationalist styles by the composers of the Balakirev circle.”10

7

Scriabin’s Nine Mazurkas, Op. 25, published in 1899, were the last piano works belonging to his early period.

8 Anatoly Liadov (sometimes transliterated as Lyadov), 1855-1914.

9 Mily Balakirev (1837-1910) formed the “Mighty Handful” (also known as “The Five”) in the early 1860’s.

This was a group of composers who promoted Russian nationalism and wrote in a musical style which was distinctly more progressive than the emerging Russian conservatory tradition.

10 Jim Samson, The Cambridge Companion to Chopin, Cambridge University Press, 1994, 7.

6

Another important characteristic of Scriabin’s early piano writing was his use of long pedal-tones with non-functional harmonies over them. Sergei Rachmaninoff, who had been Scriabin’s classmate, was also fond of this device. 11 Rachmaninoff’s EtudeTableau in E-flat minor, Op. 39, No. 5 (Ex. 6 on the following page) was written in 19161917, some twenty years after the publication of Scriabin’s famous Etude in D-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 12. As we compare the Rachmaninoff’s Op. 39, No. 5 (Ex. 6) to Scriabin's Op. 8, No. 12 (Ex. 7)—which is enharmonically in the same key—strong similarities in texture can be observed, especially during the buildup to the coda in the Scriabin example (starting at measure 33).12 Likely the bass notes in each example are meant to be evocative of church bells.

Rachmaninoff, in his dictated reminiscences, discussed the important role of bell-like sonorities in Russian music13: “This love of bells is inherent in every Russian. I always associated the idea of tears with them. The sound of church bells dominated all the cities of Russia I used to know: Novgorod, Kiev, Moscow.” 14

11

Rachmaninoff and Scriabin had the same teachers in Moscow: Taneyev, Arensky and Zverev.

Scriabin, especially starting from the works of his middle period and on, had a strong preference for keys with sharps, rather than flats.

13 Bell-like effects can be found in many of Rachmaninoff’s works, including his Suite No. 1 for Two Pianos Fantaisie-Tableaux, Op. 5, and the choral symphony The Bells, Op. 35.

14 Sergei Bertensson, Sergei Rachmaninoff: a Lifetime in Music, Indiana University Press, 2001, 184.

12

7

Ex. 6. Rachmaninoff Etude-Tableau in E-flat minor, Op. 39, No. 5

Ex. 7. Scriabin Etude in D-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 12, mm. 33-38

While Scriabin’s early style was firmly diatonic, he had already found certain unique qualities which remained present in his music throughout all his stylistic periods.

Among these, two in particular are to be noted (as shown in examples 7, 8 and 9): 1. The extensive use of cross-rhythms, often in conjunction with quintuplets and sharply dotted rhythms, such as the 32nd notes preceded by a rest, which can be observed in the right hand melody of the Etude Op. 8, No. 12 (Ex. 7).

2. Figurations which unfold harmonies downwards in the left hand, delaying the arrival of the root note. While it most often is to be found in the middle and late period, it is a technique which he also employs in the early period piano works.

8

Ex. 8. Scriabin Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 2

Ex. 9. Scriabin Etude in B major, Op. 8, No. 4 Other specific modes of harmonic and textural treatment in Scriabin’s early period etudes will be discussed in the detailed analysis of the Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 2, to be found in Chapter 2.

In the last few years of his early period Scriabin did not produce many compositions, as his teaching duties took up much of his time. Arthur Eaglefield Hull, the author of the first-ever Scriabin biography in English, explains: “As time went on Scriabin found his pedagogic duties seriously clogging his creative work, and in 1903… he followed Taneyev’s lead and resigned from his post in order to devote himself entirely to composition.”15

15

Arthur Eaglefield Hull, A Great Russian Tone-Poet, Scriabin, London, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1916, 46.

9

Immediately after his resignation, there was an explosion of creativity, and he produced a tremendous number of compositions, including the Symphony No. 3 in C minor (19021904), the Piano Sonata No. 4 in F-sharp major (1903-1904), and more than thirty additional works for piano solo.16 Scriabin left Russia in 1903 and returned only in 1909, settling in Moscow in 1910. His compositions starting from 1903 display a rapidly evolving harmonic language.

It is for this reason that Scriabin’s middle period is sometimes referred to by his biographers as the “transitional period”.

The Piano Sonata No. 4 in F-sharp major, Op. 30 (1903) marked Scriabin’s transition from his early period to his middle period. Of it, Bowers writes: “this music created a unique vocabulary of astonishment. Its evolution had been almost imperceptible and such a gradual break with the conventions of preceding music was rare among twentieth-century composers.”17 The first phrase of this composition (Ex. 10) already reveals Scriabin’s extended use of chromaticism, especially in the bass line, and in the appearance over-all of “apparent harmonies” (chromatically-inflected chords which seem to be self-standing, but are actually better understood as the result of contrapuntal voiceleading in a fundamentally diatonic context).

Ex. 10. Scriabin Piano Sonata No. 4 in F-sharp major, Op. 30 16 17

Hull, Tone-Poet, 46.

Bowers, Biography, 1:331.

10

During the middle period, Scriabin did not yet break away from a foundational employment of diatonic harmony. The cadences throughout this music retain clear V-to-I motion, yet the impact of individual passing chromatic sonorities clearly foreshadow the far more “structural” chord constructions of Scriabin’s late period. It should be noted that Scriabin had already experimented with a high degree of chromaticism towards the end of his early period. His Mazurka Op. 25, No. 3 (1899), for instance (Ex. 11), is a distinctly forward-looking work which employs a chromatic bass line very similar to the opening of the aforementioned Piano Sonata No. 4 in F-sharp major, Op. 30. 18

Ex. 11. Scriabin Mazurka in E minor, Op. 25, No. 3 (1899) From a rhythmic perspective, the compositions of the middle period feature even more complex textures than are to be found in the early music. Many of the nonfunctional harmonies found in this stylistic period are generated from chromatic stepwise motion.

There are works in Scriabin’s middle period featuring extended sections (usually prolonging a single harmony) which do not fit neatly into a diatonic framework. His forward-looking Piano Sonata No. 5, Op. 53 (1907) is a good example (see Ex. 12 on the following page). It features several techniques that will become the central basis for pitch

18

Scriabin’s Nine Mazurkas Op. 25 (composed in 1898-1899) are his last opus of his early period.

11

organization in the late period works, namely: the non-functional dominant chord sonorities, and a “tritone-link” motion in the bass which provides the main harmony with two valid root notes. However, Scriabin does not relinquish use of the traditional V-to-I bass motion entirely at this point in his career; that will only occur with the initial piano works of his late period: the Two Pieces (Deux morceaux), Op. 59. The absence of traditional cadential bass motion by falling perfect fifth (or rising perfect fourth) is one of the most defining features of his unique harmonic system to be found in the late period music.

Ex. 12. Scriabin Piano Sonata No. 5, Op. 53 (1907), mm. 13-33 This entire section of Scriabin’s Piano Sonata No. 5 (Ex. 12) is essentially an expansion of a single harmony and is centered around the two fundamental bass notes of E and A-sharp (which are a tritone apart). Note the underlying apparent dominant seventh

12

chord sonority (E, F-sharp, A-sharp with added dissonances) and chords stacked by fourths. The bass-motion is generally by minor third or tritone. These methods of pitch organization will be used extensively throughout the music of Scriabin's late period.

The Eight Etudes Op. 42 were written in 1903, the first—and perhaps the single most productive—year of Scriabin’s middle period. The set is characterized by florid textures and harmonic vagueness. Nevertheless, all eight of the Op. 42 Etudes end with a traditional cadence on the tonic chord in root position. Many of Scriabin’s figurations in these etudes obscure the underlying harmonic motion—yet, in fact—still only on the surface level. This can be observed in the Etude in F-sharp major Op. 42, No. 3 (Ex. 13).

Ex. 13. Scriabin Etude in F-sharp major, Op. 42, No. 3 (1903) The left hand can easily be reduced, structurally, to a single underlying harmony, since all of the non-harmonic notes (marked in the score) can be explained as decorations of that unifying chord. The D-natural in the first measure is an incomplete neighboring note which resolves to C-sharp, and the non-harmonic E-sharp likewise resolves to an Fsharp. Similarly, in measure two, the B-flat resolves to A, and the C-sharp to a D-natural.

Thus, the simplicity of the underlying diatonic harmony is only made clear to a listener at the end of each measure, when all the non-harmonic notes resolve. However, the fundamental diatonicism of this music is subtly colored with the various neighboring notes which have—albeit on a surface level—strongly hinted at more complex chromatic

13

harmonies and progressions. In the first measure (Ex. 13), the fundamental harmonic tones in the left hand are: A-sharp, C-sharp and F-sharp, and in measure two they are Fsharp, A and D. The right hand of this etude also contains many non-harmonic, dissonant notes which further serve to obscure the underlying harmony.

What changed Scriabin's fundamental reliance on diatonic harmony? What led him, in fact, to abandon it? To an important degree it was his exposure, around 1905, to the mystic writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky 19 (however, he had been somewhat familiar with mystic thought earlier, through his association with Prince Trubetskoy which started around 1900).20 Writes Alfred J. Swan in his Scriabin biography: “After the completion of his Symphony No. 3 Le Divin Poème (The Divine Poem), which he worked on from 1902 until its completion in 1904, he was thrust into contact with theosophy. He kept up from that time a constant intercourse with the leaders of theosophic thought.”21 Don Louis Wetzel points out that Scriabin’s interest in mysticism fell in line with the intellectual currents in Russia at the time: Mysticism as an aspect of spiritual realism was very much in vogue during the turn of the century in Russia. Along with the influential teachings of Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) came the esoteric mystic-philosophical doctrines of Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891).Theosophical notions of world catastrophe, cleansing destruction, suffering, and the building of a new, superior culture in which Russia would play a leading role were variants on the same messianic theme dear to Russian god-seekers (idealists) and god builders (rationalists) alike. 22

19

H.P. Blavatsky (1831-1891). Co-founder of the Theosophical Society, occultist, and author.

Prince Sergey Nikolayevich Trubetskoy (1862-1905). A professor at the philosophical faculty in Moscow, who ran the Religious and Philosophical Society which Scriabin attended. See Francis Maes, A History of Russian Music: From Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2002, 211.

21 Alfred J. Swan, Scriabin, London, 1923; repr., New York, Da Capo Press, 1969, 90.

22 Don Louis Wetzel, “Scriabin in Russian musicology and its background in Russian intellectual history”, PhD Diss., Thornton School of Music, 2009, 70.

20

14

When Scriabin composed the 3 Etudes Op. 65, his life was revolving around the Mysterium (also known as the Mystery) project, which ultimately remained unfinished.

The Mysterium was a festival of “omni-art” that would fuse music and speech, lights and perfume, dance and gesture with his theosophically inspired beliefs. The ideas that inspired the Mysterium also influenced all his late period compositions (starting from 1910). Anna Gawboy writes in her Ph.D. dissertation on the Prometheus, Op. 60: Scriabin believed that there had once been a divine, primal unity which had been broken to form the diversity of the material world. Art, too, had once been unified, but had since been fragmented to form the separate genres of music, painting, dance, and poetry. Scriabin’s belief in the fundamental correspondence between art and life led him to theorize that by reuniting the arts in the Mysterium, his “omni-art” could bring about the primal unity which had existed at the beginning of the cosmos.23 Scriabin’s own philosophical writings at the time were generally derived from those of Blavatsky, which in turn were based around the core ideas of earlier world mysticism.

Boris de Schloezer writes in his book Scriabin: Artist and Mystic: “This phase of Scriabin’s spiritual development owed most to theosophy… he felt tremendous admiration for Mme. Blavatsky to the end of his life.” 24 In 1905, Scriabin asked a question, which he then proposed to answer in a radical manner: How can you express mysticism with major and minor? How can you convey the dissolution of matter, or luminosity? Above all, minor keys must disappear from music. Minor is abnormal. Minor is an undertone. I deal with overtones. Oh, how I want to break down the walls of these tempered tones. 25 By 1910, Scriabin developed a new system of harmony which, arguably, accomplished exactly that. His Deux morceaux, Op. 59 [Two Pieces, Op. 59] were the first piano works

23

Anna Gawboy, “Alexander Scriabin’s Theurgy in Blue: Esotericism and the Analysis of Prometheus: Poem of Fire, Op. 60”, Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2010, 38.

24 Boris de Schloezer, Scriabin: Artist and Mystic, trans. Nicolas Slonimsky, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987, 68.

25 Bowers, Biography, 107.

15

to use this new system of tonal organization. 26 As can most strikingly be observed in them, Scriabin has completely gotten rid of the traditional harmonic bass motion by perfect fifths at cadences and replaced it with motion by tritone. He has also abandoned key signatures.

The ending of Scriabin’s Prelude Op. 59, No. 2 (Ex. 14, starting from m. 56 in the work) reveals his new approach to harmony.

Ex. 14. Scriabin Prelude Op. 59, No. 2, mm. 56-61 The most important new characteristics first observed in the Prelude Op. 59, No. 2 are: the bass motion by tritone, the use of the acoustic scale as the underlying mode, and chords stacked in fourths. In the last seven measures of the prelude, every pitch (except the D-flat in the final chord) is derived from the overtone series, particularly its upper partials. It is these partials, in fact, which generate the acoustic scale (see the overtone series and the acoustic scale illustrated on the next page).

26

Scriabin’s orchestral work Prometheus Op. 60, written in 1910, was his first published work to use his new system of harmony. The Deux Morceaux Op. 59 for piano solo were composed at the same time, but not published until 1912.

16

Ex. 15. The acoustic scale is derived from the upper partials of the overtone series

As noted before, the only pitch (in Ex. 14) which does not belong to the above collection is the D-flat in its final chord. That pitch is derived, instead, from the octatonic scale rising from the same note - C. It has been generally observed that Scriabin used the acoustic scale—with the addition of two “foreign” notes derived from the octatonic scale built up from the identical initial pitch—is the central mode of pitch organization to be found in the works of his late period.

Ex. 16. Scriabin’s “Chord of the Pleroma”, also known as the “Prometheus Chord”, “Synthetic Chord” and “Mystic Chord” The use of the acoustic scale as the pitch generator of Scriabin’s late-period harmonies was first observed in his Prelude Op. 59, No. 2 and in his orchestral work Prometheus, Op. 60.27 Lana Forman notes that the composer quite consciously and clearly explained

27

And to a lesser extent: the octatonic scale.

17

the significance of his “Prometheus Chord” or the “Synthetic Chord: 28 “Scriabin himself called it the ‘chord of the pleroma’ apparently referring to the Gnostic meaning of the word (pleroma as the spiritual universe, the abode of God and of the totality of the divine powers and emanations).” 29 This chord is based on the acoustic scale which, in turn, is generated by the harmonic overtone series (see Ex. 15 and 16 on the previous page).

Swan writes: “this chord is derived from some of the more dissonant upper partial tones of sound [overtones]. Upon analysis it will be found to embrace all the four kinds of triads (major, minor, diminished and augmented). That is why it has been called synthetic.”30 However, it was only one of many possible vertical sonorities which Scriabin generated with his system of modes. 31 Creating a harmonic structure from a linear progression, and thereby gradually breaking down the distinction between melody and harmony, was an historically notably achievement of Scriabin, with far-ranging reverberations in the procedures of several of the 20th century’s most noted musical radicals, such as Arnold Schoenberg and, in his own way, Igor Stravinsky.

But it was hardly an “abstract” issue for Scriabin; it arose from his own passionate understanding of the mystic idea that, fundamentally, the multiplicity and unity of reality were identical (this will be discussed in Chapter 4). As stated previously, it is likely that Scriabin was introduced to these ideas as early as 1900, during his association with the

28

Also known as the Mystic Chord, a term coined by Arthur Eaglefield Hull in 1916.

Forman, “Mysticism”, 9.

30 Swan, Scriabin, 99-100.

31 When the astounded Rachmaninoff asked Scriabin to explain the opening chord of Prometheus, Scriabin replied that it was the “Chord of the Pleroma”. The concept of the Pleroma—the primordial divine wholeness—goes back to Eastern Christian Gnosticism. See Forman, “Mysticism”, 9.

29

18

prominent Russian philosopher Prince Sergey Trubetskoy 32, but could not find a way to express them fully in his music until the works of his late period. 33 The analysis of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 in Chapter 7 will reveal how Scriabin incorporated pitches from the octatonic collection at key structural moments in lieu of what otherwise would have functioned at such points: traditional cadences. Scriabin’s writing in his late period, moreover, acquired greater transparency through the use of compositional techniques restricting, in a highly economical way, the choice of modes and intervals.

The specific differences between middle period and late period compositional techniques in this regard will be clarified later in this dissertation. Overall, it was Scriabin’s middle period which featured the greatest degree of textural complexity. There is a paradox here, as it was a result of adding figuration to obscure an underlying harmony still firmly rooted in traditional progressions with triads as the main building block.

It was only in the late period, with the employment of his “Synthetic” or “Mystic Chord”, that Scriabin realized his goal: breaking free of traditional major and minor chord constructions. However, this was not his sole method of pitch organization at that time, as the analysis of the 3 Etudes Op. 65 will reveal. Furthermore, Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 65 feature some particularly restrictive intervallic techniques which are not found in his other works.

32

Trubetskoy introduced Scriabin to the writings of Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), a poet, philosopher and literary critic who was the first Russian mystic to construct a philosophical system informed by his mystic experience. See Julia A. Lamm, The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Christian Mysticism, John Wiley & Sons, 2017, 495.

33 Siglind Bruhn, Voicing the Ineffable: Musical Representations of Religious Experience, Pendragon Press, 2002, 41.

19

Chapter 1. The Early and Middle Period: Biographical Background

John Field, the Irish composer who invented the piano nocturne genre, was active in Russia from 1803 and eventually settled down, remaining there until his death. Hull writes: “[Field] was the veritable inventor of the nocturne. In these [pieces] of such simple charm and naïve grace, we find the very essence of Chopin’s idylls and eclogues; and from Chopin the mantle fell directly on to the shoulders of Scriabin.” 34 Scriabin studied piano under Nikolai Zverev (who was also the teacher of Rachmaninoff, Goldenweiser, and Siloti) and Vasily Safonov (a pupil of Leschetitzky).

All the early and middle period Scriabin orchestral works—including the First and Second Symphonies, the Piano Concerto in F-sharp minor, Op. 20 and the Poem of Ecstasy, Op. 54—were first produced and conducted by Safonov, in Moscow. 35 Scriabin also studied counterpoint and composition at the Moscow Conservatory with Sergei Taneyev. 36 The studies began privately around 1886 and continued when Scriabin was admitted to the Moscow Conservatory 1888.

When Taneyev resigned from his position as head of the conservatory to concentrate on composition, Scriabin was assigned to Anton Arensky’s class. 37 After a falling-out with Arensky, Scriabin finished his conservatory studies in 1892 with a degree

34

Hull, Tone-Poet, 11.

Bowers, Biography, 1:140.

36 Sergei Taneyev (1856-1915) a student of Tchaikovsky. He served as the principal of the Moscow Conservatory from 1885 until 1889, and continued as a member of the teaching faculty until 1905. He was also an accomplished pianist and was awarded the gold medal for both piano studies and composition upon the completion of his studies at the Moscow conservatory in 1875. See Ibid., 30 .

37 Anton Stepanovich Arensky (1861-1906), who was only ten years older than Scriabin, studied composition at the St. Petersburg Conservatory with Rimsky-Korsakov. See John Michael Cooper, Historical Dictionary of Romantic Music, Scarecrow Press, 2013, 26.

35

20

in piano only. He did not complete his composition degree, unlike his classmate Rachmaninoff, who graduated both as a pianist and composer. “When Rachmaninoff got permission to conclude the course in composition in a shorter period than usual, Scriabin with an astounding naiveté applied for a similar privilege. Arensky refused indignantly”, writes Swan.38 Nevertheless, Scriabin’s training in the Moscow conservatory, especially the years spent with Taneyev, left him well-educated with regard to traditional harmony, counterpoint and part-writing. “It was not that Scriabin was negligent”, Swan observes.

“But he evinced no love for contrapuntal studies, selected short themes for his exercises and was content to fulfill the bare requirements”. 39 Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov described Taneyev’s compositional method in his memoirs: Before setting out for the real expounding of a composition, Taneyev used to precede it with a multitude of sketches and studies: he used to write fugues, canons, and various contrapuntal interlacings [sic] on the individual themes, phrases, and motives of the coming composition; and only after gaining thorough experience in its component parts did he take up the general plan of the composition and the carrying out of this plan, knowing by that time, as he did, and perfectly, the nature of the material he had at his disposal and the possibilities of building with that material.40 Taneyev was an admirer of Beethoven and a stickler when it came to musical form and construction. His famous textbook on counterpoint demonstrated a novel method of teaching counterpoint by means of algebraical symbols. 41 Taneyev also had a large private library of scores to which Scriabin likely had access.

38

Swan, Scriabin, 16.

Ibid., 15.

40 Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Letoppis Moyey Muzykalnoy Zhizni, St. Petersburg, 1909, published in English as My Musical Life, New York: Knopf, 1925, 3rd ed. 1942, 383.

41 Hull, Tone-Poet, 31.

39

21

Scriabin was not particularly enthusiastic about the various music theory classes at the conservatory, but it is clear that his studies with Taneyev contributed to his meticulous attention to excellent voice-leading and high clarity of form.

During his last year of studies at the conservatory, Scriabin met the influential music publisher Mitrofan Belaieff (often transliterated as Belyayev or Belayev), and began a professional relationship which lasted until Belaieff’s death. 42 Belaieff attended one of Scriabin’s concerts in St. Petersburg in the Spring of 1894 and “went into raptures over the Etudes Op. 8.”43 Safonov visited Belaieff's publishing house in May 1894 to help promote his pupil’s compositions and brought along the scores of Scriabin’s works including his Allegro appassionato, Op. 4 and the Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 6; all of which Belaieff liked enormously.

Belaieff’s patronage resulted in Scriabin’s European tours from 1895 through 1897 and the publication of many compositions including: 12 Etudes, Op. 8 (1895), 24 Preludes, Op. 11 (1888-96), the Piano Concerto in F-sharp minor, Op. 20 (1896), Piano Sonatas Nos. 1-3 (1892-1898) and the Symphony No. 1 in E major, Op. 26 (18991901).44 Most importantly, Belaieff offered a stipend of 100 rubles per month (for life) in return for owning the rights to all of Scriabin’s music, an offer which was accepted. 45

42

Mitrofan Petrovich Belaieff (1836-1903) was a musically-trained timber magnate who had gone on to set up a publishing house and a performance series devoted to the promotion of music by Russian composers. See Stephen Walsh, Stravinsky: A Creative Spring: Russia and France, 1882-1934, University of California Press, 2003, 65.

43 Swan, Scriabin, 18. Evidently, before Scriabin’s official debut as a pianist in 1895. Confirmed in Bowers, Biography, 1:195.

44 Hull, Tone-Poet, 40.

45 In 1894 Moscow, 100 rubles per month could support a family of four. The cost of tuition at the Moscow conservatory was 100 rubles per year, and housemaids were paid 3 rubles a month. See Bowers, Biography, 1:192.

22

Scriabin’s early period lasted until around 1900. During this time, Scriabin experienced a personal tragedy. He had damaged his right hand in the summer of 1891 by practicing too strenuously the Mozart-Liszt Réminiscences de Don Juan. Josef Lhevinne (1874-1944), a star Safonov pupil and fellow classmate, had deeply impressed Scriabin with his masterful rendition of this profoundly difficult work, spurring Scriabin to learn it over the summer without Safonov’s guidance. Bowers mentions that Scriabin worked on Balakirev’s Islamey Op. 18 (another work notorious for its extreme pianistic challenges) at the same time.46 Overall, there was a great deal of competition between the piano students at the conservatory.47 Other sources indicate that Scriabin’s overzealous practicing over the summer was possibly a response to Safonov’s advice to deepen his touch (at the keyboard). Some speculate that Scriabin’s right hand was generally more prone to injury following an accident c.1885 where a horse-drawn carriage fractured his right collar bone, limiting his use of the right hand for a while.48 Writes Bowers: “From 1891 well into 1900, Scriabin hovered on the brink of nervous breakdown. Scriabin was imprisoned within himself. His only exit was music. In 1891, calamity struck and nothing could have taxed his nervous system more.”49 To make matters worse, his personal physician (doctor Zakharin) told

46

Balakirev’s Islamey inspired Ravel to write the daunting Scarbo as the third movement of his Gaspard de la nuit (1909). Several harmonic progressions in the Balakirev’s Islamey found their way into Scriabin’s music of the late period, as will be illustrated in Chapter 6. See Elliott Antokoletz and Marianne Wheeldon, Rethinking Debussy, Oxford University Press, 2011, 42.

47 When, in the summer of 1891, the pianist Semeon Samuelson said that he was learning the entire Bach WTK, Scriabin announced that he was preparing all 32 of the Beethoven Sonatas. See Faubion Bowers, The New Scriabin; Enigma and Answers, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1973, 32.

48 Simon Nicholls, The Notebooks of Alexander Skryabin, Oxford University Press, 2018, 11.

49 Bowers, Biography, 1:149.

23

Scriabin that his right hand would never recover and that his career as a concert performer had come to an end.50 Scriabin practiced with the left hand alone during this time, acquiring incredible proficiency. The left hand prowess which was gained during these years had an immediate effect on his piano writing. The left hand figurations in much of his piano output generally surpass the right hand in terms of density and span of register; this is especially apparent in many of the Twelve Etudes Op. 8, which he programmed during his first professional appearances as a pianist after the injury (in 1894-1895).

Scriabin never fully trusted his right hand again. Many sources state that Scriabin’s hand had recovered sufficiently enough by 1892 for him to be able to play (at his graduation recital) the very same Liszt Réminiscences de Don Juan which injured his hand the previous year, but that is incorrect. “Although biographers wanted to present Scriabin as victorious over his piano nemesis, he did not play the Liszt Réminiscences de Don Juan at his graduation recital”, writes Bowers.51 Nevertheless, he was awarded a gold medal in piano and appeared regularly as a performer of his own works until his death in 1915. “For the rest of his life he was always nervous about his [right] hand. He constantly checked his fingers for strength and speed” writes Bowers. 52 Yet this did not interfere with him performing his supremely difficult works in public.

50

Bowers, Enigma, 32.

His graduation recital program included: Bach Capriccio on the Departure of a Beloved Brother, Beethoven Sonata No. 30 in E major, Op. 109, Chopin Ballade No. 4 in F minor, Op. 52, an unspecified Waltz by Liapunov and the Schumann-Liszt Frühlingsnacht, Ibid., 35.

52 Bowers, Biography, 1:150.

51

24

Swan writes: “When the war broke out [in 1914]…. He was roused to the relief of suffering and gave big concerts in aid of various wartime organizations.” 53 Scriabin gave his official debut as a pianist on March 7, 1895 in St. Petersburg, in a series of concerts sponsored by Belaieff, and finished composing the Op. 8 Etudes by the end of March that year.54 On the March 7th concert, he only performed six etudes (which were eventually published as part of the Twelve Etudes Op. 8), namely: F-sharp minor (No. 1) B major (No. 2) B-flat minor (either No. 7 or No. 11) D-sharp minor (No. 12) A-flat major (No. 8) G-sharp minor (No. 9) The fact that Scriabin programmed selections at the concert suggests that he probably did not envision the set of Twelve Etudes Op. 8 as having an overarching tonal plan. 55

1. The Increasing Influence of Philosophy Scriabin first became interested in philosophy around 1891 and gradually began to move away from his Orthodox Christian faith. Judging from Scriabin’s own writings, he was quite religious until the hand injury of 1891. Bowers writes of Scriabin’s devotion to Christianity for the first 20 years of his life: “He embraced the Orthodox Church. He was still young enough for those eminently satisfying answers.” 56 However, an excerpt from one of his letters to Nataliya Sekirina (his first romantic relationship) postmarked

53

Swan, Scriabin, 55.

Bowers, Biography, 1:195.

55 See page 35.

56 Bowers, Biography, 1:138.

54

25

May 30, 1893 (translated into English and quoted by Bowers), reveals a loss of faith after the hand injury: Oh, if only I could see some light ahead. If it were possible to believe blindly in the future! Then, then can a man take firm and steady steps towards the goal he loves. Then, life unfolds enticingly. Alas, there is too much in life that destroys faith, no matter how much I want to believe.57 Swan writes: “Scriabin’s struggle for a spiritual outlook was accompanied by rapid strides towards a complete emancipation from his early musical ideas. The last tribute to Chopin was paid in the Nine Mazurkas, Op. 25 [published in 1899]”. 58 As early as 1892, before the Etudes Op. 8 were written, Scriabin began exploring the writings of various philosophers, yet according to Sabaneyev (quoted by Nicholls): “having happened upon a few thoughts, colored them immediately in the rainbow hues which were already his.” 59 In his autobiographical sketch, Scriabin noted: “at 21, first acquaintance with philosophy.

Something of Schopenhauer”.60 Bowers writes: “that something was The World as Will and Representation. Seeds of Eastern mysticism too were well watered by Schopenhauer.”61 Scriabin’s notebooks (translated into English by Simon Nicholls and Michael Pushkin and published by Oxford University Press in 2018), reveal that his writings were not works of a professional philosopher. In 1922, the philosopher Ivan Lapshin, wrote an assessment of Scriabin’s philosophical writings and concluded that they were “the translation of a system of poetic images into the language of scientific-philosophical

57

Bowers, Biography, 1:175.

Swan, Scriabin, 27.

59 Nicholls, Notebooks, 179.

60 Bowers, Biography, 1:165.

61 Ibid., 1:165.

58

26

concepts.”62 Scriabin’s own philosophy was always a combination of ideas taken from various sources. At this early point in his life, he took the idea of controlling one's fate through personal will from Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation.63 One description of Schopenhauer’s philosophy is that it revolves around the contrast between the Will and Representation, respectively, the inner and outer aspects of the world.

Will is the force that compels us to live and to struggle, while representation is merely the form that everything takes in our minds. Phenomenal reality is only the objectification, the representation, of the Will. Yet neither can be said to cause the other, for the Will operates outside the laws of time, space and causality. Rather, Will and Representation are the two parallel aspects of the world: every representation is the expression of some will, and every act of will alters the arrangement of the representations.64 Schopenhauer had declared music to be the purest art form because it alone is able to break through to the essence of reality. In the World as Will and Representation he stated that music is a universal language; it is not a copy of phenomena, not a depiction, but a direct expression of the will itself.65 From Nietzsche (he read his The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and Thus Spoke Zarathustra), Scriabin took the idea of the Übermensch (Superman), who possessed the power to alter human history.

62

Nicholls, Notebooks, 178.

Ballard, Companion, 20.

64 “The Mysterium of Alexander Scriabin”, Thesis paper. Blog post accessed November 10, 2019. https://allahuhaqqblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/thesis-paper-the-mysterium-of-alexander-scriabin/ 65 Bruce R. Elder, Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2010, 61.

63

27

Bruce R. Elder writes: “What he admired most about these philosophers was the pride of place they granted music in culture: music was the highest of all art forms, and the only artistic medium capable of transforming life.” 66 Only by the late period, starting from his Prometheus, Op. 60 (1910), would Scriabin develop the harmonic language needed to express his own philosophical musings, further clarified by Madame Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine, which he first encountered in 1905. Towards the end of his life, according to his friend and biographer Leonid Sabaneyev, Scriabin stated: “I don’t understand how it is possible to write ‘just music’ now. Music receives meaning and significance when it is a link in a unified plan, with an entire world view.” 67 Safonov (the director of the Moscow Conservatory since 1889), appointed Scriabin to a piano professorship at the conservatory in 1898, a duty which Scriabin did not particularly enjoy as it limited the time he had for composition. 68 Scriabin’s interest in philosophy intensified after he met Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy in 1898. 69 Trubetskoy ran the Religious and Philosophical Society in Moscow, and Scriabin regularly attended its meetings70. Trubetskoy introduced Scriabin to the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov71, who was an important figure for the Russian symbolist movement.

66

Elder, Harmony, 20.

Swan, Scriabin, 177.

68 In 1903 he decided to relinquish his post and moved to Switzerland to devote himself entirely to his creative work.

69 Trubetskoy’s father - Nikolai Petrovitch Trubetskoy (1828–1900) founded the Moscow Conservatory in 1866, together with Nikolai Rubinstein. See Rebecca Mitchell, Nietzsche's Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire, Yale University Press, 2016, 152.

70 Maes, History, 211.

71 Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900). Scriabin was receptive towards Solovyov’s theurgic conception of art.

See Ibid.

67

28

Symbolism was flourishing by the turn of the century in Russia, coinciding with Scriabin’s middle period. (I shall return to symbolism in later chapters as it relates to the Etudes Op. 42 and Op. 65). Some early biographers of the composer were skeptical of the role theosophy had on Scriabin’s music. For instance, in his 1916 biography of the composer, Arthur Eaglefield Hull writes: Theosophy has been much favored amongst the intelligentsia, especially in Moscow. Scriabin’s music appears to have joined issue with theosophy as a convenient peg to hang his music on. The peg has little concern with the garment which hangs on it. Of course, I am not doubting Scriabin’s single-mindedness in this practice. We are told that Scriabin’s theosophy grew out of his music. I can imagine rather that when Scriabin encountered theosophy he immediately embraced a system which harmonized so well with his prevailing musical moods.72 However, with the publication of Scriabin’s own notebooks translated into English in 2018, it became quite clear that Scriabin’s exposure to theosophy and mysticism had inspired the rapid evolution of his harmonic language starting from the middle period.

The Twelve Etudes Opus 8 were written at a point in Scriabin’s life when he came to terms with his hand injury and acquired a more optimistic outlook on the future.

At this time, he also ended a long romantic relationship with Nataliya Sekirina after she rejected his marriage proposal (her family did not consider Scriabin a proper match). At least one of the Op. 8 Etudes—No. 8 in A-flat major—was composed specifically for Sekirina and in 1894, Scriabin asked her teacher at the Moscow Conservatory (Igumnov)73 to assign it to her.74 By the end of 1894, Scriabin proposed marriage, and

72

Hull, Tone-Poet, 48.

Konstantin Nicolayevich Igumnov (1873-1948) was a Russian pianist and the teacher of many Russian pianists. studied under Nikolai Zverev, and at Moscow Conservatory under Alexander Siloti and Pavel Pabst. He took theory and composition courses from Sergei Taneyev, Anton Arensky and Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov.

74 Bowers, Biography, 1:184.

73

29

was rejected. Bowers writes: “It is hard to know which was really more painful to Scriabin, the catastrophic hand injury or the unsuccessful affair with Nataliya.” 75 Nevertheless, he maintained a correspondence with Sekirina until December 1895.

Shortly after, while he was working on the Twelve Etudes Op. 8, Scriabin penned a credo in his notebook: To be an optimist in a real sense, one must suffer doubt and conquer it. In tender youth, full with illusions of desire and hope, I delighted in shining glories. I awaited a revelation from Heaven. It came not. Well, what then? I sought eternal beauty, and found it not. Like buds which never bloom, my feelings were stilled.

At last I took comfort in memories. But once used to them, they vanished. I will proclaim to all people that I have triumphed over you, over myself. I say that they can place no hope in you, that they can expect naught from life except that which they create by themselves alone. I thank you for all the fears which your trials and tribulations aroused. You made me know my endless power, my unlimited might, my invincibility. You gave me the power of creativity. 76 Bowers writes in reference to the credo: “two pages in a notebook show an entry belonging to 1894. Scriabin is beyond the despair of the First Sonata [Op. 6]; his hand is getting better; Natalya fades. A new Scriabin now expresses himself, the Scriabin of victory, a triumphant man who overcomes and conquers. It will serve him for the rest of his life, as both a philosophical and musical platform of vantage”. 77 Thus, the Twelve Etudes Op. 8 have an important place in Scriabin’s early output: they helped establish his professional reputation both as a composer and a performer of his own works.

75

Bowers, Enigma, 33.

Bowers, Biography, 1:187.

77 Ibid., 1:187.

76

30

2. The Belaieff Circle Scriabin’s association with Belaieff put him in close proximity to other influential composers. It is important to understand where the Belaieff circle fits on the timeline of Russian musical development in the 19th century. There was no formal conservatory education in Russia until the founding of the St. Petersburg Conservatory (by Anton Rubinstein) in 1862. The Moscow Conservatory opened later, in 1866. Before then, “musical amateurism was accepted simply as a fact, until Tchaikovsky”, writes Bowers. 78 The “Mighty Handful” (also known as the “The Balakirev Circle” and “The Five”) appeared by the 1860’s, and Balakirev was the only musician by trade among the group. 79 Rimsky-Korsakov was a naval officer, Cui was a general in the Engineers Corps, Borodin was a chemist, and Mussorgsky was a clerk in the Communications Ministry. The “Mighty Handful” resisted the emerging institutions of formal education. 80 Tchaikovsky’s Manual of Harmony was the first harmony textbook published in Russia, in 1871. Taneyev’s textbook on counterpoint was published only in 1908 (although he taught the subject from the beginning of his appointment at the Moscow Conservatory in 1878).

Gradually, a new trend emerged, one which embraced conservatory education and training, rather than rejecting it. Bowers writes: “Now that Russia had governmentsupported and privately endowed schools of music, dilettantism became intolerable. As

78

Bowers, Biography, 1:53.

The “Mighty Handful” nickname was coined in 1867, in an article published by the critic Vladimir Stasov (1769-1848).

80 The Mighty Handful used their music and writing to remove foreign influences from Russian music and establish a new style based on national folksong, dances, non-Western elements. See Gregor Tassie, Yevgeny Mravinsky: The Noble Conductor, Scarecrow Press, 2005, 1.

79

31

the 1860’s and 70’s turned into the 1880’s and 90’s, the Mighty Handful vanished and Belaieff’s Circle emerged”.81 By that point, Russian audiences hungered for any music that was from abroad. Important artists and composers who visited with much acclaim included: Liszt (1842), Berlioz (1847), Verdi (1861), Wagner (1863), and Busoni, who taught at the Moscow Conservatory from 1890-1891. 82 The emerging Belaieff Circle consisted of musicians with a conservatory education, unlike the Mighty Handful who, as Alfred J. Swan wrote: “fought their way by sheer force of creative genius, force that sometimes stood in place of technique”. 83 The link between the two conflicting groups was Rimsky-Korsakov 84, who emerged as the leader of the Belaieff circle, and did much of the proofreading and quality control for Belaieff’s own publishing house.85 Swan continues: “It was into this circle that Scriabin was welcomed at the outset of his music career. There was Liadov—a meticulous miniature writer enamored of Chopin, Glazunov—a born contrapuntist, and Blumenfeld—a writer of preludes of many an appassionato climax, sometimes with genuine notes of pathos and trembling”.86 The Belaieff circle of musicians had progressive views. They did not disdain the conservatory education; quite on the contrary, they believed in a rigorous technical training. Taneyev (Scriabin’s teacher) agreed with the ideals of The Mighty Handful, but believed that a conservatory education could provide the next generation of Russian 81

Bowers, Biography, 1:59.

Ibid., 1:61.

83 Swan, Scriabin, 63.

84 Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov (1844-1908) was a member of the Mighty Handful and studied with Balakirev. However, he later became closely connected with the Belaieff circle and unlike the other members of the Mighty Handful, was in favor of a conservatory education with strong Western influences.

See Waldo Selden Pratt, Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. 4. Macmillan, 1909, 103.

85 Walsh, Stravinsky, 66.

86 Swan, Scriabin, 64.

82

32

composers with better tools to establish a distinctly Russian style of composition.

Matthew Walker writes: “Taneyev shared aims of Balakirev and his followers, but disagreed with the methods by which those aims were to be achieved: he insisted on a thorough musical education rather than the musical primitivism advocated by Balakirev.”87 Wagner’s music, first introduced to Russian audiences in the 1860’s, was largely ignored by the Mighty Handful, but his music studied and respected by members of the Belaieff Circle. Some have speculated that Wagner’s idea of a Gesamtkunstwerk— a composition featuring many art forms combined into one—influenced Scriabin’s Mystery. However, although Scriabin studied Wagner's scores for their musical (and literary) innovations, he knew little about Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk ideal. His ideas about synthetic art were derived mostly from Solovyov's writings. 88 Many of the harmonic innovations in Scriabin’s late period works were largely a synthesis of techniques found in earlier music, from Liszt to Balakirev, Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov. In Chapter 6, I will discuss the specific harmonic progressions in certain works by those composers which may have served as a source of inspiration for Scriabin’s new approach to harmony in his late period works. Scriabin used those elements to create an entirely unique and original system of tonal organization which broke away from diatonic harmony altogether, and realized his goal of expressing mystic ideas through music.

87

Matthew Robert Walker, Rachmaninoff: The Illustrated Lives of the Great Composers, Omnibus Press, 2011, 34.

88 Simon Morrison, Russian Opera and the Symbolist Movement, University of California Press, 2002, 236.

33

3. The Influence of Chopin Scriabin’s early compositional style had much in common with Chopin, from the approach to harmony, texture, and even the genres in which he composed. Scriabin’s Piano Sonata No. 1, Op. 6, for instance, was a conscious tribute to Chopin, and like the latter’s Piano Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 35 (and Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 12 in A-flat major, Op. 26), featured a funeral march as one of its movements. A list of Scriabin’s published piano works through Op. 25 clearly shows the Chopin influence on Scriabin’s choice of genres.

Many of these genres also formed a large part of Chopin’s output, including his Etudes (also in sets of 12), Impromptus, Mazurkas, Polonaises, Preludes, and Waltzes.

Scriabin’s choice of adding “à la Mazur” to the title of his Impromptu, Op. 2 is likely a reference to Chopin’s Rondo à la Mazur in F major, Op. 5, composed in 1826. There were many aspects of Chopin’s unique piano writing which influenced the young Scriabin (specific examples are discussed in Chapter 2). 89

89

The influence of Liszt and Wagner would become apparent only by the start of Scriabin’s middle period around 1903.

34

Anatoly Liadov (1855-1914), who was another notable member of the Belaieff Circle, also drew upon Chopin’s innovative genres for inspiration. Liadov, like Scriabin, composed Mazurkas, Impromptus, Polonaises and even a Barcarolle. Mily Balakirev (1837-1910), the leader of the Mighty Handful, also paid tribute to Chopin in many of his works.90 This may explain why most of the composers in Belaieff’s circle became disassociated with Scriabin as his harmonic language evolved at a rapid pace. Swan writes: Gradually, his [Scriabin’s] harmonic idiom became too baffling for them to comprehend. Liadov was the first to break his allegiance with Scriabin, he carried it hardly beyond Scriabin’s youthful, Chopinesque period. Glazunov and RimskyKorsakov retreated after the Divine Poem [Op. 43]. Blumenfeld remained a pioneer of Scriabin’s works longer than any of his associates but even he did not venture into the regions of Prometheus, Op. 60.91 Liadov was enraptured by the early Scriabin works, and his own music shared much of its Chopinesque qualities.92 “Liadov's own love of Chopin was in all probability conditioned by the Chopinism of [early] Scriabin. In his Four Pieces, Op. 64 [his last piano works, published in 1909], Liadov offered a late homage to his decadent compatriot.

Reciprocally, Liadov clearly influenced Scriabin's early piano miniatures", writes Stephen Downes.93

90

Balakirev composed Mazurkas, Nocturnes, Waltzes, a Berceuse. He made a solo transcription of the second movement from Chopin’s Piano Concerto No. 1, Op. 11 in 1905 and an Impromptu based on Chopin’s Preludes Op. 28 Nos. 14 and 11 in 1907.

91 Swan, Scriabin, 65.

92 Scriabin was likely familiar with Liadov’s compositions. Liadov published many Chopinesque piano works starting from 1876 (ten years before Scriabin became active as a composer) until 1909. Liadov’s correspondence with Belaieff reveals that he closely examined many compositions which Scriabin sent to Belaieff for publishing. Clearly, Liadov and Scriabin influenced one-another.

93 Stephen Downes, Music and Decadence in European Modernism: The Case of Central and Eastern Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2010: 233.

35

Alfred J. Swan, however, only tells part of the story. When Scriabin’s Prometheus (the first work of his late period, featuring a new harmonic system) was given the Glinka prize in 1911, Liadov was in fact the chairman of the Belaieff committee which awarded it. He convinced the other members of the committee that Scriabin deserved it, while in private, admitted his lack of understanding of the innovative harmonic language. Bowers writes: “He truly thought that [Prometheus] was an insane work, was totally unable to follow its musical abstractions and expressed to his friends that no sooner had he signed the protocol document that he was seized with fears that the next day Scriabin would be carted off to an asylum.”94 Liadov was also critical of Scriabin’s Symphony No. 2 in C minor, Op. 29 (1901), one of the first works of his middle period. 95

4. Background on the Composition Process of the Twelve Etudes Op. 8 The key and tempo listing of Scriabin’s Twelve Etudes Op. 8 is as follows: 96 1. C-sharp major. Allegro 2. F-sharp minor. A capriccio, con forza 3. B minor. Tempestoso 4. B major. Piacevole 5. E major. Brioso 6. A major. Con grazia 7. B-flat minor. Presto tenebroso, agitato 8. A-flat major. Lento 9. G-sharp minor. Alla balata 10. D-flat major. Allegro 11. B-flat minor. Andante cantabile 12. D-sharp minor. Patetico

94

Bowers, Enigma, 84.

Bowers, Biography, 1:282.

96 Note that Scriabin sometimes indicates the tempo with a metronome marking and adds a descriptive title which refers to the character of the work, in place of a traditional tempo indication.

95

36

One can observe that the key scheme of the first six etudes follows a pattern of descending fifths, with the B minor-B major pair of etudes (Nos. 3 and 4) in the center, but there is no clear key scheme in the ordering of etudes 7 through 12.

As discussed previously, based on the existing concert program of Scriabin’s March 7, 1895 recital, it appears that the Etudes Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 12 and one of the B-flat minor etudes (unspecified) were completed first. Scriabin promised to have the Twelve Etudes Op. 8 ready for publication by January 1895 but only finished them on March 29, 1895. Bowers writes: “Belaieff would have settled for six instead of twelve (possibly the six which Scriabin already programmed in concert), but Scriabin saw them as a group, a lucky dozen”.97 Interestingly, Scriabin included two versions of the famous Etude in D-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 12, and specified that the second version of it remain unpublished. The seldom-played second version was quite different from the original. The middle section from measure 17 remained in the more predictable F-sharp major, instead of the striking F-sharp minor of the well-known original version (as shown in examples 17 and 18 on the following page).98

97

Bowers, Biography, 1:198.

Most editions currently available are reprints of the A.N. Skryabin: Polnoe sobranie sochinenii dlia fortepiano [Compete Piano Works], vol.1 (pp.5-47) Moscow: Muzgiz, 1947. Plate M. 18650 Г - Russian, edited by Konstantin... ...Igumnov and Yakov Milstein. The editors’ note to that edition is almost always reprinted as well, and it states “these etudes were revised several times before their appearance in print in 1895. Nos 7, 8, 11 and 12 were especially heavily revised”. The very-seldom played second version of the Etude in D-sharp minor was eventually published by Muzgiz - a Soviet edition now known as Muzyka [Музыка] A.N. Skryabin: Polnoe sobranie sochinenii dlia fortepiano, vol.1 [Scriabin: Complete Works for piano, vol. 1].

98

37

Ex. 17. Etude Op. 8, No. 12, first version (often-played), middle section mm. 17-20

Ex. 18. Etude Op. 8, No. 12, second version (unpublished until 1947) mm. 17-20 Note that in this version, Scriabin remains in F-sharp major as opposed to the unexpected shift to F-sharp minor in the first (well-known) version of the piece.

38

Chapter 2. The Pianistic Textures in Scriabin’s Twelve Etudes Op. 8 and the Influence of Chopin

Many of Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 8 feature textures and pianistic devices which are derived from Chopin’s piano writing. The Chopin Etudes were published in two sets, each containing a dozen etudes. The Etudes Op. 10, dedicated to Franz Liszt, were published in 1833 and the Etudes Op. 25 were published in 1837 and dedicated to Liszt’s mistress, Marie d’Agoult. 99 Min Joung Kim writes in his DMA dissertation on the Chopin Etudes: The Op. 10 is the work of a teenager before arriving Paris in 1831; and Op. 25 was produced in his twenties. At such a young age, he lifted the genre of etude to the highest level which even today is unparalleled in artistry, in balance of musical organization and technical challenges. Unlike his contemporaries, Chopin was apparently never interested in showmanship, and instead, he sought more poetic expression and imaginative and coloristic playing in such training pieces, eventually finishing them as character pieces. 100 Schumann described hearing Chopin plays his own Etude in A-flat major, Op. 25, No. 1: Imagine an Aeolian harp that had all the scales, and that these were jumbled together by the hand of an artist into sorts of fantastic ornaments, but in such a manner that a deeper fundamental tone and a softly-singing higher part were always audible,... the first one in A-flat major, which is rather a poem than an etude.101 The two sets of the Chopin Etudes are notable for the fact that while each of them focuses on one particular technique and texture, the musical elements and the technical difficulties of each are equal, thus transcending the idea of an etude as a mere technical exercise. Quite a few of them are lyrical character pieces which do not emphasize

99

Min Joung Kim, “The Chopin Etudes: A Study Guide for Teaching and Learning Opus 10 and Opus 25”, DMA diss,. University of North Texas., December 2011, 36.

100 Ibid., 36.

101 Andreas Klein, “The Chopin Etudes: An Indispensable Pedagogical Tool for Developing Piano Technique”, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1989, 13.

39

mechanics, particularly Etudes Op. 10, Nos. 3 and 6, as well as Op. 25, Nos. 1 and 7.

Many of them are harmonically and contrapuntally advanced to a degree that they no longer conform to the idea of an etude being a vehicle for developing a specific pianistic technique. That being said, Chopin’s attention to voice leading and his preference for harmonic exploration over any pianistic considerations result in etudes which place unique technical demands on the pianist. The same is true for many of Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 8.

When Chopin ventures into remote key areas, the pianistic comfort of the initial texture often diminishes considerably. However, he does not alter the initial pianistic texture of each etude. One notable example is the central section of his Etude in A minor, Op. 10, No. 2 (Ex. 19).

Ex. 19. Chopin Etude in A minor, Op. 10, No. 2

In the example above, one can observe that as Chopin moves further from the initial key area of A minor, several measures become exceedingly difficult to play due to his meticulous attention to voice-leading. For instance, the low F in the right hand of m. 2

40

and the low G in the analogous m. 4 are necessary from the perspective of voice-leading, as they resolve the leading tone in the preceding chord. Those notes (which are doubled in the top voice and are not essential from a harmonic standpoint) are often omitted in performance by pianists with smaller hands, in order to reduce the extreme difficulty of those particular measures.

Scriabin, in his set of Twelve Etudes Op. 8, continued in the same vein as Chopin but ventured even further harmonically. Furthermore, many of Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 8 are in ABA form and feature contrasting sections which deviate from the initial technical device or texture of the work. Some of the etudes in this set are closer in design to many of Liszt’s Transcendental Etudes S. 139, as they often contain central “B sections” which are no longer bound to the main pianistic figuration, texture or technical device of the etude.102 Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8, No. 1 in C-sharp major (Ex. 20 on the following page) focuses on the pianistic challenge of playing repeated double notes smoothly, with large intervals in the left hand (which are often rolled in performance). 103 The choice of key reveals Scriabin’s preference for tonal areas further away from C major in the circle of fifths. Chopin’s Op. 10 set begins with an etude in C major. The first piece in Liszt’s cycle of Twelve Transcendental Etudes is in C major, and the key-scheme of the set is organized by descending thirds. Scriabin began his Op. 8 set in the “heightened” key of

102

First published as the Douze Grandes Études S. 137 in 1837 and later revised as the well-known Études d'exécution transcendante, S.139 in 1851. This is the case for Liszt Transcendental Etudes Nos. 4 and 8, which have extended lyrical middle-sections. It is important to note that the Transcendental Etudes No. 3, 9, and 11 could be better categorized as “concert pieces” rather than Etudes as they are not focused on training any specific pianistic device or texture.

103 Scriabin himself reportedly could not stretch more than a ninth, see Chapter 5.

41

C-sharp major. The thick texture of this work, full of non-harmonic notes and rapidly changing harmonies, demands a mastery of the pedal. Note that the sequence of seventh chords (Ex. 20) marks the beginning of Scriabin’s exploration of this kind of harmony, which would be taken to the extreme with the Mystic Chord in his late period works. 104 This etude features an unchanging texture of the double-note repeated motive, followed by a single note. Two-against-three cross-rhythms are also very prominent. In m. 17, the main textural/pianistic device is briefly transferred over to the left hand (see Ex. 21). 105

Ex. 20. Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 1 in C major, beginning

Ex. 21. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 1, measures 15-17

The second etude in this cycle—Op. 8, No. 2 in F-sharp minor (Ex. 22) will be analyzed in detail later on in this chapter—with regard to specific elements of Scriabin’s harmony in his early period. The main pianistic difficulty in this etude is playing its cross

104

The “Mystic Chord” will be discussed in detail as it relates to the late period works. It sounds very much like a major-minor seventh chord with added note dissonances, yet does not function as such.

105 Chopin employs a similar device in his Etudes Op. 10 No. 4 (see pg. 46) and Op. 25 No. 11.

42

rhythms without sounding clunky and disjointed; significant demands are placed on the pedaling technique and quality of tone. The left-hand writing is sprawling and often ventures into the register of the right hand melody, which is a characteristic of Chopin’s piano writing as well.

Ex. 22. Scriabin Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 2

Thumb crossing (different than outright hand crossing) is a distinctive feature of Chopin’s piano writing. A good example, one of many throughout his output is his Prelude in A-flat major, Op. 28, No. 17 (Ex. 23 on the following page). Thumb crossings are generally employed within a pianistic texture to maintain a consistent timbre within each voice (note how the high E-flat in the left hand stays in that same register as the thumbs overlap). Scriabin uses this device quite frequently, especially during his early period.

Almost all his Etudes Op. 8 have textures and technical challenges which are derivative of Chopin’s piano writing. In the early works, the unorthodox pianistic figurations and chord spacing play a greater role in creating a distinctive “Scriabinesque” sonority than any individual harmonic progression.

43

Ex. 23. Chopin Prelude in A-flat major, Op. 28, No. 17

Scriabin’s Etude in B minor, Op. 8, No. 3 (Ex. 24), features a consistent triplet motive throughout. The main difficulty is smoothly managing all the thumb crossings between the hands. Certain positions require the left hand to cross over the right, and vice-versa. The exact placement of the shifts between those positions are a personal choice of the performer, to be tailored for maximum comfort, and are not indicated in the score.106 Note that the figuration is arranged in groups of three notes, while the octave doublings suggest a grouping in two notes, matching the shifts of the hand position.

Ex. 24. Scriabin Etude in B minor, Op. 8, No. 3

A similar example which features pianistic figuration going against the “natural” rhythmic execution of the note-grouping can be found in Chopin’s Etude in F minor, Op. 25, No. 2 (see Ex. 25 on the following page). There, the right hand figuration is grouped

106

Liszt, in his original piano works and transcriptions, generally indicates which hand goes “over” during hand crossings, by writing sopra near the relevant notes. Chopin and Scriabin leave it up to the performer.

44

by three notes, yet the most natural (and far easier) rhythmical execution would have been in groups of two notes, as it lines up each triplet quarter note in the left hand.

Ex. 25. Chopin Etude in F minor, Op. 25, No. 2

Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8, No. 3 features a contrasting middle section in the relative major (starting from m. 41, see Ex. 26). It contains new, slower-moving thematic material in the right hand, while the left hand retains the initial figuration of the triplets with a distinctive octave doubling. Many of Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 8 provide the performer with an opportunity to rest from the particular technical challenge being employed in the work.

This is something which goes beyond Chopin’s treatment of material in his etudes, with the exception of the Etude in B minor (Op. 25, No. 10), which also has an extended, contrasting middle section.107

Ex. 26. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 3, contrasting thematic material starting from m. 41

107

As mentioned earlier, this is more typical of Liszt’s Etudes than those of Chopin.

45

Scriabin’s preference for complex cross-rhythms—even in his early period works—is apparent in the Etude in B major, Op. 8, No. 4 (Ex. 27). The widely-spaced left hand figurations are typical of Scriabin’s (and Chopin’s) writing, especially in the early and middle-period etudes.

Ex. 27. Scriabin Etude in B major, Op. 8, No. 4

The fifth etude in the set, in E major—marked Brioso (spirited), is more of a concert etude or a character piece rather than a typical etude. 108 The main technical difficulty is smoothing out all the rapid shifts between the registers while keeping the pedaling clear throughout all the rapid harmonic changes. The widely-spaced left-hand chords (rolled upwards) also present pedaling challenges for the pianist.

Ex. 28. Scriabin Etude in E major, Op. 8, No. 5 108

In the often-reprinted Skryabin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii dlia fortepiano [Compete Piano Works], vol.1, Moscow: Muzgiz, 1947, Ed. Konstantin Igumnov and Yakov Milstein, there is a note indicating that the original tempo indication for this etude was in fact Allegro, which Scriabin later changed to Brioso.

46

In m. 17, there is a “B-section” in the relative minor (Ex. 29), with contrasting thematic material in the left hand. The right hand now accompanies the melodic left hand line.

Ex. 29. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 5, the beginning of the B-section, mm. 17-20

A similar technique of inverting the texture can be found in Chopin’s Etude Op. 10, No. 4, also in C-sharp minor (Ex. 30). 109

Ex. 30. Chopin Etude in C-sharp minor, Op. 10, No. 4

109

However, in the Chopin Etude Op. 10 No. 4, the left hand takes up not only the texture of the right hand but also the main thematic material. It is in fact an example of invertible counterpoint.

47

In the Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 5, the return of the “A-section” features a textural variation of the initial material (now with continuous right hand triplets), while retaining the same registration as the beginning of the work.

Ex. 31. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 5, return of the “A-section”, starting in m. 33

This kind of rhythmic variation of the main thematic figuration in an etude (while retaining the same contour and registration) can be found in Liszt’s Transcendental Etude No. 4 Mazeppa (Ex. 32) and Chopin’s Etude in E-flat minor, Op. 25, No. 5.

Ex. 32. Liszt Transcendental Etude No. 4 Mazeppa, m. 7 thematic statement and subsequent variation in m. 114

48

Scriabin’s Etude in A major, Op. 8, No. 6 (See Ex. 33) is reminiscent of Chopin’s Etude in D-flat major, Op. 25, No. 8 (Ex. 34).

Ex. 33. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 6

Ex. 34. Chopin Etude Op. 25, No. 8

In both etudes, the right hand is composed entirely of double sixths, and the main difficulty is playing the double notes so that they sound legato. However, in the Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 6, the triplet rhythm is not continuous and the occasional two-againstthree cross-rhythms result in a greater textural complexity.

The seventh etude in the set, Op. 8, No. 7 in B-flat minor (Ex. 35), features widely spaced triplet figurations in the left hand. The main difficulty is the frequent thumbcrossing between the hands. It is often simplified in performance by taking the highest note in the left hand and playing it as part of the right hand chord.

49

Ex. 35. Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 7

The left hand figurations are reminiscent of Chopin’s Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 35, first movement (Ex. 36), but Scriabin’s takes the texture further by employing a greater variety of register.110 In addition, Scriabin’s figurations are offset from the melodic line in the right hand, and this is carefully indicated by Scriabin with his unusual beaming of notes across the bar line. 111 Note that the left hand triplets in the Scriabin (Ex. 35) consistently span more than an octave. This etude also features a slower, contrasting middle section in G-flat major.

Ex. 36. Chopin Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 35, first movement

110

There is also a somewhat similar use of rests in the right-hand melody.

A similar rhythmic displacement in the left hand figuration may be observed in Scriabin’s Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 42 No. 2, to be discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

111

50

Scriabin’s Etude in A-flat major Op. 8, No. 8 (along with Op. 8 Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9) also has a contrasting middle section (m. 17) in a new tempo (poco più vivo), and different melodic characteristics (See Ex. 37 and Ex. 38).

Ex. 37. Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 8

Ex. 38. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 8, the contrasting middle section starting in m. 17

The main thematic material in this etude (Ex. 37) has a texture which is found often in Chopin’s piano writing, notable for the independent treatment of the three voices in the right hand, sometimes emphasized by a different articulation from the left hand (see Ex. 39).

Ex. 39. Chopin Fantaisie in F minor, Op. 49

51

One will notice that Scriabin’s strongest associations with Chopin’s piano textures often occur in same tonal areas. This may indicate Scriabin’s deep knowledge of Chopin’s output. It can also be related to keyboard topography and how certain tonalities feel more comfortable for specific pianistic devices.

Scriabin’s Etude in G-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 9 (Ex. 40), features prominent thumb crossings, and cross-rhythms. The metronome marking is indicated by Scriabin, and the descriptive title of Alla ballata (in the style of a Ballade, a clear reference to Chopin) is added.112 It also has an extended middle section in A-flat major (enharmonically the parallel major).

Ex. 40. Scriabin Etude in G-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 9

Ex. 41. Chopin Etude in B minor, Op. 25, No. 10

112

It was in fact Chopin, with his Ballade No. 1 in G minor, Op. 23 (the first of 4 Ballades, composed 18311842), who established the Ballade as a piano solo genre. See Jonathan D. Bellman, Chopin’s Polish Ballade: Op. 38 as a Narrative of National Martyrdom, Oxford University Press, 2010, 52-56.

52

Octave passages with added held middle notes are also an unusual feature of Chopin’s piano writing. Scriabin’s use of a similar pianistic device in this Etude (Ex. 40) bears a strong similarity to the Chopin Etude in B minor, Op. 25, No. 10 (Ex. 41 on the previous page). The main left hand octave figuration in Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8 No. 9 has a repetitive circular motion, which is reminiscent of the middle section of Chopin’s Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53 (Ex. 42).

Ex. 42. Chopin Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53

Scriabin’s Etude in D-flat major, Op. 8, No. 10 (Ex. 43) is arguably the most difficult to execute in the entire set. The mixed interval double notes combined with the non-stop left hand leaps pose a significant pianistic challenge. The registral range of the left hand writing goes far beyond Chopin’s textures. Notice how Scriabin often fills in the main harmony of each measure down from the top note. This textural device is often found in Scriabin’s late piano works, as will be observed in the analysis of his 3 Etudes Op. 65 in Chapter 7.

Ex. 43. Scriabin Etude in D-flat major, Op. 8, No. 10

53

The return of the main material in m. 89 features octave doublings and added leaps in the left hand which further increase the difficulty (Ex. 44). Small variants in the return of the “A section” of works (yet, importantly, without the alternation of register in the main melodic line) is something that can be frequently observed in Chopin’s piano works.113

Ex. 44. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 10, mm. 89-92

The penultimate etude of the set, Op. 8, No. 11 in B-flat minor (Ex. 45), typical of Scriabin’s early writing, has frequent thumb crossing and requires mastery of pedal technique. Notice the consistent voice-crossing between the lowest note in the right hand and the highest note in the left hand. 114

Ex. 45. Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 11 113

Different from outright textural variations which alter register and rhythm, often found in the works of Franz Liszt.

114 See pages 2-3 for a similar example in another early Scriabin Etude: the Op. 2 No. 1.

54

Scriabin was likely influenced by the third movement Marche Funèbre (Ex. 46) from Chopin’s Piano Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 35 (in the same key), which has striking similarities in the texture and even the melodic characteristics.

Ex. 46. Chopin Piano Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 35. Movement 3: Marche Funèbre

The last (and most famous) etude of the set—Op. 8, No. 12 in D-sharp minor— features some extremely difficult writing for the left hand (see Ex. 47 on the following page). The left hand frequently goes above the lowest right-hand notes 115, and has very prominent wide intervals on many of the downbeats, including tenths and elevenths. 116 The main pianistic challenge is managing all the left-hand leaps smoothly and working out a natural tempo rubato. The role of the pedal is extremely important in capturing all the low bass notes; and extra care must be taken to fully clear the non-harmonic tones from the preceding measures when changing the pedal.

115

This Etude is often simplified by pianists by taking the highest left-hand notes with the right hand, yet it is ill-advised to do so as it negatively impacts the natural rubato of the left hand. Scriabin’s unusual hand distribution play an important role in creating a distinctive sound. This is especially the case in the works of his early period.

116 The wide left hand intervals here are usually rolled in performance, including the famous Welte Reproducing Piano Roll made by Scriabin himself in 1910.

55

Ex. 47. Scriabin Etude in D-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 12

A comparison with Chopin is inevitable. The main thematic material (in the right hand) bears a strong rhythmic resemblance to Chopin’s Etude in C minor, Op. 10, No. 12 (Ex. 48).

Ex. 48. Chopin Etude in C minor, Op. 10, No. 12

The next part of this chapter will focus on the specific elements of Scriabin’s early period style, with a detailed analysis of his Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 2.

While there are many textural similarities with Chopin’s piano works, certain unique traits of Scriabin’s style were already established in his Etude Op. 8, No. 2.

56

1. Elements of Scriabin’s Early Style, as Evidenced in his Etude Op. 8 No. 2 The Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 2, from Scriabin’s early period is selected for an in-depth analysis in this chapter as it will allow for easier comparison with the middle-period Etude Op. 42, No. 2 in Chapter 3. Furthermore, because both etudes feature prominent quintuplets in the main figuration and are in roughly the same tempo, the apparent similarity in the pianistic figuration will allow for a clearer illustration of how Scriabin’s harmonic language evolved. Specific music examples will be copied here, but it will be helpful for the reader to open an edition of the etudes, which are all available freely via IMSLP.117 The form of the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 in f-sharp minor is clearly ABA, with each section being eight measures long, plus a two-measure coda. All of the phrases neatly fit into groups of one or two measures. This remained a trademark of Scriabin’s writing throughout his entire output, along with his fondness of the sonata form. His incredible innovations in the realms of harmony were all encased in traditional forms.

According to the celebrated American composer Aaron Copland, “Scriabin's idea of attempting to put a really new body of feeling into the straight-jacket of the sonata form was one of the most extraordinary mistakes in music”. 118 However, Scriabin himself stated: “I need to be exact [count the measures precisely] as to make the form crystal clear”.119 Scriabin’s exceedingly clear phrase-writing (most often in groups of two or four measures) along with his sense of structure and symmetry in his works, was necessary in

117

IMSLP. Scriabin Etudes Op. 8, PDF score, accessed April 23, 2020. https://imslp.org/wiki/12_Etudes,_Op.8_(Scriabin,_Aleksandr) 118 Ballard, Companion, 37.

119 Bowers, Biography, 1:332.

57

order to make the complex musical material accessible to the listener. It was likely an influence of Taneyev’s teaching. This is especially true for the selected Scriabin etudes examined in this dissertation, which reveal a remarkable consistency in the structuring of his works, despite (or in addition to) all the harmonic complexity and innovation.

Boris de Schloezer (one of Scriabin’s closest friends) sheds some light on Scriabin’s creative process, which emphasized clarity of form: Scriabin always progressed from the general to the particular, from oneness to individual moments. From this whole he deduced its constituent parts. When he composed, his work never went in a single direction from inception to conclusion.

His work progressed simultaneously in all directions, developing from different points of departure according to a plan worked out in the most minute details. 120 For the first eight measures, the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 has a prominent tonic-dominant scaffold as the underlying harmonic progression. Scriabin emphasizes all five of the halfnotes in the right hand with a sforzando, tenuto, or both, and these notes are invariably C-sharp and F-sharp (the fifth and first scale degrees, respectively).

The pedal-point on the F-sharp tonic lasts for seven measures, and in m. 8, Scriabin modulates to the minor-dominant. The stability of the F-sharp pedal-point contrasts with the rhythmic variety and the inherent instability of the figuration. The balancing of an unstable element with a stable one was very much part of Scriabin’s aesthetics throughout all his stylistic periods. Even in his most vague textures, as will later be observed in the Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 42, No. 2, there is almost always a stable element for the ear of the listener to make sense of.

120

Schloezer, Mystic, 87. Boris de Schloezer’s (1881-1969) book on Scriabin was published by a Russian immigrant press in Berlin in 1923. Boris was the brother of Scriabin’s mistress Tatiana Schloezer. Scriabin had confided to him his innermost thoughts and mystical convictions in their many conversations.

58

Returning to the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 in F-sharp minor, almost every rhythmical figuration that is used throughout the piece first appears in m. 1, namely: the triplet, quadruplet, dotted sixteenth-note motive, quintuplet, and a held half-note (Ex. 49). 121

Ex. 49. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 2, m. 1

It appears these various rhythmic figures are treated as motives that are later developed throughout the work. In addition to the F-sharp pedal-point , the pitches immediately following the bass in the left hand create an important contrapuntal line: C-sharp, D, D-sharp, E, F-sharp, which then resolves down to the E natural in that same register. This voice-leading allows for a smooth modulation to the minor dominant.

Examine a reduction of the left hand of the first eight measures of the etude. The original register and chord spacing is retained, highlighting the motion in the tenor voice.

Ex. 50. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 2, reduction of the left hand, mm. 1-8

121

With one important exception: the two-note slur motive, which first occurs in m. 10.

59

It is important to note that there are two left hand notes highlighted within this texture (the bass and tenor voices in the reduction on page 58), the tenor voice being the more active one. In the late period works, Scriabin’s harmonies would often contain two root-notes (generally a tritone apart), equally important in terms of function and often interchangeable. This was something which Scriabin himself specifically mentioned in his notebooks, referring to the “polarity” of the tritone relationship and comparing it to a tonic-dominant progression. The prominent fifths in the left hand of the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 already suggest this sort of thinking. This will be discussed in detail in later chapters, as it applies mostly to the Three Etudes Op. 65.

Even within a seemingly free, improvisatory texture in the left hand, containing a great deal of rhythmic variety, there is meticulous attention paid to four-part voiceleading. In the third measure, the E-sharp leading tone (part of a dominant chord) resolves down to an E-natural, then to the D in the following measure. That contrapuntal line seemingly gets abandoned there in that register, but a closer examination reveals that a complete version of the same line (a doubling) was present in upper voice of the right hand all along, emphasized by leaping away from those melodic notes (Ex. 51).

Ex. 51. Op. 8, No. 2. The contrapuntal voice present in the top line of the right hand

60

Another important aspect is the vast registral range of the left hand figurations, as mentioned earlier. Left hand accompanying figurations which go above the melody is a common pianistic device in works composed for the left hand alone. Interestingly, Scriabin was working on his Nocturne for Left Hand Alone, Op. 9 (Ex. 52) the same year as he was writing the Etudes Op. 8 (it is not clear which opus was actually composed first).122 There are some distinct similarities in the figuration: the sprawling left hand arpeggios spanning several octaves and the aforementioned voice-crossing.

Ex. 52. Scriabin Nocturne for Left Hand Alone, Op. 9, No. 2

122

Scriabin’s Op. 9 contained two works, both for the left hand alone, namely: the Prelude in C-sharp minor and the Nocturne in D-flat major. Like the Etudes Op. 8, the Op. 9 was composed in 1894 and published in 1895. Around this time, Scriabin also composed a paraphrase of an unspecified waltz by Johann Strauss for the left hand alone, which was never published (and possibly never written down in the first place). See Bowers, Biography, 1:151.

61

Coming back to the analysis of Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8, No. 2 (see Ex. 51 on page 59), the highest notes in the left hand immediately precede certain right hand melody notes in that same register, namely the G-sharp and the D. This sort of overlap between two separate voices is generally found in the polyphonic keyboard works of J.S. Bach, transcriptions of orchestral and vocal works for piano solo, and appears quite often in Chopin’s piano solo works (and Scriabin’s early output). It may create an unwanted “repeated note” motive in performance. In the example from Chopin’s Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59, No. 1 (see Ex. 53), notice how the high A in the left hand (second measure) precedes the same note in the right hand, belonging to a different voice within the texture. It demands extra care on behalf of the performer, and a well-regulated piano action.

Ex. 53. Chopin Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59, No. 1 The right hand melody in the Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 2 can be easily perceived as having two active voices. Note that the two contrapuntal lines (presented linearly within one melodic voice) are a perfect fourth apart. Furthermore, the perfect fourth is frequently used as a melodic interval throughout this etude (Ex. 54).

Ex. 54. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 2, melody in m. 1

62

The first two short phrases in the right hand (mm. 1-2) can be reduced down to the following:

Ex. 55. Op. 8, No. 2. The inherently polyphonic right hand melody: a single line contains two voices, a perfect fourth apart.

The perfect fourth (and tritone) will become more important in Scriabin’s late works:

Ex. 56. Scriabin Piano Sonata No. 8, Op. 66 (1913) mm. 22-24 Starting from Op. 60, Scriabin generated his vertical sonorities out of various modes (the acoustic and octatonic scales) and often used fourths (and tritones) as building-blocks for his harmonies (Ex. 57).

Ex. 57. Scriabin Etrangeté, Op. 63, No. 2 (1912) mm. 10-11

63

Continuing the analysis of the Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 2, the phrase-grouping for the “A section” mm. 1-8, (comprised of two phrases, four measures each) is very clear: 1+1+2, 1+1+2 (the length of each phrase in measures). The first phrase ends on a half-cadence on the dominant, and the second phrase modulates to the key of the minor dominant (C-sharp minor).

Examine a free harmonic reduction of the next section (mm. 9-16, also eight measures in length) with all of Scriabin’s enharmonic “spelling” intact (Ex. 58):

Ex. 58. Scriabin Op. 8, No. 2, harmonic reduction of the mm. 9-16 One will notice an interesting harmonic feature in this section is the two consecutive seventh chords in m. 9. The A major “apparent” dominant seventh chord is followed by the B major dominant seventh chord in 4-2 position, which resolves to the E minor chord in 6-3 position. These chords are linked by a common-tone in the bass (A).

Incidentally, in his late period, Scriabin’s “Mystic Chord” contains many elements of a dominant seventh chord (more on this in Chapters 5-7). The sonorities in his late works were often vertical manifestations of the various modes, generally a combination of the acoustic and octatonic scales. It is the mode which generates the sonorities, and while the “Mystic Chord” (on the surface) sounds like a dominant seventh chord with added note dissonances, it is not treated as an individual building block.

Scriabin spoke disparagingly of the Impressionists and their added-note harmonies and

64

his only documented comment on Debussy was “he shouldn’t have stolen from our Russian music”.123 Within the new harmonic system of his late period works, Scriabin managed to stay true to the natural acoustic hierarchies (such as the overtone series), and further clarified them through meticulous voice-leading and clear textures. This will be especially relevant for his works after Op. 59, yet his gravitation towards “apparent seventh chord” sonorities (and aforementioned chord spacing by fourths) can be observed even in his early works.124 Returning to the Etude Op. 8, No. 2, note the thematic transformation in the right hand melody, evident when comparing m. 1 to the start of the “B section” in m. 9.

Ex. 59. Scriabin retains the contour of the main thematic material in the “B section”

In addition to the wider spacing of the figuration in m. 9, Scriabin also has eliminated the F-sharp, G-sharp, C-sharp motive (an ascending major second followed by a perfect fourth up) and replaced it with a full consonant open position triad (Ex. 59). The ending of that phrase is taken from the melody in the cadences in m. 4 and m. 8. The general contour of the melody, even in its altered form, is still quite recognizable as being derived from the opening material. Interestingly, in m. 10, the two-note motive appears for the first time (in the right hand).

123 124

Bowers, Biography, 1:87.

Chord spacing by fourths was, largely, an innovation of Chopin. See Sabbagh, Harmony, 41-45.

65

In the “B section” (starting from m. 9), the vertical intervals immediately on the downbeats are all major thirds (except for m. 14). Scriabin’s choice of the downbeat intervals is quite revealing. In the “A section”, the downbeat intervals were predominantly: the octave, fourth, and fifth; all intervals which give little indication of mode. In the “B section”, the abundance of perfect thirds on the downbeats are necessary in order to clarify the rapidly shifting tonal centers for the listener. The faster-moving underlying chord progressions in the “B section” contrast the static “A section” of the etude (with its extensive use of pedal-points). The harmonies have less time to unfold and Scriabin adjusts the texture accordingly. Similar to the eight-measure “A section”, the phrase structure of the “B section” contains four phrases (each one measure long), followed by a longer four-measure phrase over a D pedal point. Note that it is expanding the same seventh chord sonority which functioned as an applied dominant in m. 15 and then as an augmented 6th chord in m. 16.

In mm. 12-16, the two-note motive is used throughout, in a technique which brings to mind the “elimination” stage in the development sections of certain Beethoven Sonatas (for instance, the first movement of the Sonata in C major, Op. 53 “Waldstein” mm. 142-155) where only one motive is used, often above a prolonged dominant pedalpoint. This “B section” functions as a “development”.

The return of the “A section” comes with a C-sharp (dominant) pedal-point in the bass throughout measures 17-20. The coda in mm. 21-26 brings back the open position figuration in the right hand which characterized the “B section” (see Ex. 59 on the previous page), confirming that it was not a mere textural adjustment but also functioned as a thematic development.

66

One interesting detail is the use of the lowered second scale degree (the G-natural in mm. 2, 4, 5, 8) which makes the G-sharp in m. 20 sound unexpected. Structurally, m. 20 could have been the end of the work (Ex. 60). The six-measure coda which follows also makes very prominent use of the G-natural.

Ex. 60. The prominent right hand G-sharp in m. 20

The Etude Op. 8, No. 2 reveals several important characteristics of Scriabin’s early works. The influence of Chopin with regard to piano texture is apparent. There is a distinct lack of octave doublings, polyrhythms, and an avoidance of excessive orchestral effects. This is very different from the more “symphonic” approach to piano writing which can often be observed in the piano masterworks of Beethoven and Liszt, where the piano texture contains a variety of registers and doublings which serve to evoke sound of various orchestral instruments.125 One can notice that while the bass sonorities become thicker throughout the work (and the lower register becomes more prominent with added lower octaves), the melodic material in the right hand stays in roughly the same register. The gradual shift of the

125

Samuil Feinberg (1890-1962), discusses (among others things) the evolution of piano writing from Beethoven, to Liszt, Chopin and Schumann, and then Scriabin. He likens prolonged octave passages to “antiquated” effects such as the alberti bass, and observes that they are evocative of organ and orchestral sonorities. Abundant consecutive octaves become rare as harmonies increase in complexity, and this can be observed in the evolution of the piano writing from Scriabin’s Op. 8 to his later opuses of etudes. See Feinberg, Samuil, Pianizm kak iskusstvo [Pianism as Art], Moscow, Muzyka, 1965, 91-94.

67

melodic material into a lower register from mm. 12-17 is accomplished entirely through stepwise motion. Scriabin (unlike Beethoven and Liszt, for instance) tends to avoid presenting the same material in different registers. In that sense it is purely pianistic writing, which is not meant to be evocative of the organ or orchestral instruments.

Scriabin’s choice of register is generally based on an organic unfolding of the melodic line, with emphasis on the most natural-sounding chord spacing and consistent voice-leading with minimal doublings (aside from the bass notes in octaves, which help to produce a richer piano tone). The same can often be said about Chopin’s piano textures.

Scriabin’s increasing use of complex polyrhythmic figuration, such as 5-against-3 cross rhythms, can be observed throughout this etude (and also very prominently in his Op. 8, No. 4). This too, is an influence of Chopin’s piano writing. It is very likely that Scriabin was inspired, at least unconsciously, by the Chopin Prelude in F-sharp minor, Op. 28, No. 8 (see Ex. 61 on the following page) which is in the same key as Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8, No. 2 and also features unusual polyrhythms.

In addition, Chopin’s technique of unfolding the left hand harmonies downward in that prelude (delaying the arrival of the fundamental bass note of each harmony), becomes an important textural device in Scriabin’s late period works, especially the Etudes Op. 65, to be discussed in Chapter 7.

68

Ex. 61. Chopin Prelude in F-sharp minor, Op. 28, No. 8

While the complete set of Chopin’s 24 Preludes, Op. 28 was not performed publicly (in one sitting) until 1906, by Ferruccio Busoni in Zurich, Scriabin must have been intimately familiar with many of them at the time of the composition of his Op. 8 Etudes. Scriabin modeled his 24 Preludes, Op. 11 (many of which were composed before the Op. 8) on the Chopin Preludes, Op. 28. They share the same key-scheme which follows the ascending circle of 5ths in major and relative minor pairs. Curiously, these preludes were not composed chronologically. Scriabin worked on the Preludes from 1888-1896, while the Twelve Etudes Op. 8 were finished by March 29, 1895. 126 With a good understanding of some of the characteristics of the early etudes and how Scriabin’s early education shaped his writing, there is now a frame of reference to discuss the significant innovations in the Eight Etudes Op. 42 belonging to Scriabin’s middle period, in the next chapter.

126

Bowers, Biography, 2:284.

69

Chapter 3. Eight Etudes Op. 42: An Overview

Scriabin’s Eight Etudes Op. 42 were written at a point which marked the start of a rapid evolution of his harmonic language. The “middle period”, which lasted from 1903 until 1910, is sometimes referred to by early biographers (including Arthur Eaglefield Hull) as “the transition period”. The late period, with its revolutionary harmonic ideas, began a mere seven years later with the Prometheus Op. 60. What caused this gradual yet rapid development in Scriabin harmonic thinking? Leading up to 1903, Scriabin started working on an opera. Bowers writes: Friends recorded enough of Scriabin’s conversations so that it was possible to envision the opera fairly clearly. He talked a lot about it during the years 19011903. Every posture of the philosophical Scriabin is here, but something prevented its fulfillment. The whole project ended in nothing, abandoned and unfinished. The countless hours of writing the text and discussing its ideas were wasted.127 Boris de Schloezer considered the unrealized opera from this time to be an important precursor to Scriabin’s ultimate concepts and his Mysterium.128 Scriabin’s notebooks contain fragments of the libretto to the opera, which was centered around a nameless hero: a Nietzchean superman who brought mankind together in music and celebration.

Bowers writes: We encounter in the opera: the unity of the whole world in one brotherhood of festivity, the super heroic nature of an individual who commands crowds with a thought, who composes his own work of art, the opera within the opera, of such melting exquisiteness that it accompanies the deaths of the hero and heroine. 129 Wagner’s influence is quite clear.

127

Bowers, Biography, 1:305.

Ibid., 1:305.

129 Ibid., 1:324.

128

70

A fragment of the libretto to the opera is reproduced below, preserved in one of Scriabin’s notebooks. It was written after his First Symphony but before 1903: There is a tender wave of sound, filled with delight, with a greeting of magical delight. Plays with a wave of caressing light. But all of those riches are just a background. This dream has been crowned by the shapely image of a young queen.

She is the hope of all mortals, she is the idol of all her subjects; and before her departure in her honor, her father is giving a merry banquet.

Before you all the Stars of the universe grow dim. On your brow is the stamp of heavenly beauty, and all of creation is subject to your fatal charms. You, Goddess, have conquered all on earth.

I pity you, unhappy child of earth. Your whole life is a horrible suffering. How pitiful is your whole existence, Aimless wandering in an obscure forest. Without faith in an ideal, or dreams, or enchantment! Everything around is hidden in mystery to you.

I summon you to a bright festival. Of love, labour and beauty. It is not the austere life of an ascetic that I have come to proclaim to the world. O just live according to me, and you will come to know life. 130 Another preserved fragment of the libretto, penned by Scriabin’s hand, confirms that Scriabin’s Mystery was another attempt at expressing the ideas which he first encountered, developed and made his own during the middle period: “I am the apotheosis of world creation. I am the aim of aims, the end of ends.” 131 While there aren’t many details regarding his unfinished opera, Bowers mentions that at least two middle period Scriabin works for solo piano were in fact originally intended as arias in the opera, namely: Poeme Op. 32, No. 2 and Poeme Tragique, Op. 34.132 Similarly, in the late period, the unfinished Mystery inspired virtually all of his late piano solo works. Swan writes: “according to Scriabin and Sabaneyev, the Mystery

130

Nicholls, Notebooks, 58.

Bowers, Biography, 1:315.

132 Bowers, Enigma, 47.

131

71

was to be the concluding act of the life of our race, a final manifestation of its vitality, a colossal mystical cataclysm separating our perishing race from a new-born race. All the finest creative powers, heretofore dismembered in the different branches of art, would be united in the Mystery”.133 One could argue that the middle period or “transition period” works were Scriabin’s attempt to mold his harmonic language to express his still vague ideas regarding the Mystery. Swan continues: “about the time of the fading away influence of Chopin [1899] Scriabin thought of a grand festival of humanity that would unite all arts. Religion and art were always connected in his mind and a strange magic power was ascribed to them.”134 At this stage, his mystical ideas found their way into the Symphony No. 1 in E major, Op. 26 (1900). The last movement of the first symphony featured a Choral Epilogue and Fugue “In Praise of Art”. Examining the text to that chorale, it is clear how these ideas were further developed in the late period in the unfinished Mystery project: O, wondrous image of Divinity, pure art of harmonies! To you in friendship we bring the Praise of ecstatic feeling. You are the bright dream of life, you are a festival, you are repose, As a gift you bring to people Your magical visions. Your free and mighty spirit Reigns all-powerful on earth, Man, uplifted by you, Accomplishes gloriously the best of feats. Come, all peoples of the earth, We shall sing glory to art! Glory to art, Glory forever! 135 Scriabin still lacked the clarity that his exposure to Blavatsky (and other leaders of the Theosophic movement) would bring. Several sources have pinned down that pivotal year down to 1905.136

133

Swan, Scriabin, 77.

Ibid., 78.

135 Text of the chorus from Scriabin’s Symphony No. 1, published by Belaieff, Leipzig 1900.

136 Bowers, Biography, 1:324.

134

72

The Eight Etudes Op. 42 (1903), written during the first year of the middle period—after Scriabin’s resignation from the Moscow conservatory post—marked a turning-point in his life as a composer. The years spent teaching there (1898-1903) were particularly unproductive for Scriabin, who found the teaching duties tedious and unfulfilling as they severely limited the time which he could devote to composition. 137 He was also increasingly disappointed in his marriage to Vera Ivanovna and left his family (his wife did not grant him a divorce) for his former pupil Tatyana Schloezer. 138 Bowers writes: “Scriabin’s life now had grown more complex. Now it was clear he had seduced Tatyana. His love became the source for the thirty or forty piano pieces, but most of all, seemed an urgent cause for going abroad” 139. According to Tatyana’s own memoirs, they first met in 1902 and she became his private composition pupil.

In her Master’s Thesis, Laura Lynn Whitehead writes: “Scriabin left minimal evidence of his personal philosophy before 1900. Nonetheless, his later philosophy has many similarities with the nineteenth-century Russian influences - mysticism, symbolism, messianism, apocalyptic foreboding and unification.” 140 The Symbolist movement in Russia began in 1892 (same year Scriabin graduated from the Moscow Conservatory) with the publication of Symbols, a collection of poetry by Dmitry Merezhkovsky (1865-1941).141 Merezhkovsky, who gave lectures on Russian literature, believed that Symbolism would usher in a new era in the arts featuring mystical content,

137

An important work from this period in his Symphony No. 2 in C minor, Op. 29 (1901).

Hull, Tone-Poet, 46.

139 Bowers, Biography, 1:324.

140 Laura Lynn Whitehead, “Transcendent Sounds: The Early Piano Music of Alexander Scriabin”, Master’s Thesis, University of Victoria, 2008, 25.

141 Whitehead, Sounds, 25.

138

73

symbols, with an emphasis on subtlety.142 Rebirth and transcendence were important concepts Symbolist thought. The symbolists believed that the world was entering a period of rebirth and anticipated the coming of a new existence. Many saw creation as a mythic, ritualistic act, which connects artist with the past and future. 143 These ideas became more important during the late creative period of Scriabin’s life.

Belaieff died in December of 1903, at the age of 67. His death was followed by that of Peter Jurgenson: the publisher of Scriabin’s early works Op. 2, 3 5 and 7. 144

A

month before Belaieff’s death, Scriabin gained the support of a Moscow patron Margarita Morozova, who provided him with a stable income of 200 rubles a month for an indefinite period (twice that of Belaieff’s generous stipend). From 1908 through 1911, Scriabin was also supported by an annual stipend from the conductor-impresario Sergei Koussevitzky.145 The Eight Etudes Op. 42 were his last compositions written while Belaieff was still alive, and Scriabin carried scores of the piano pieces from Op. 30 through Op. 42 to his last meeting with him. These pieces were all written during the summer of 1903, as Scriabin was determined to make enough money from publishing his compositions to be able to spend the winter in Switzerland. 146

142

Ronald E. Peterson, A History of Russian Symbolism. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1993, 13.

Wetzel, Musicology, 26.

144 Scriabin’s Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 6 was first published by Belaieff in 1895.

145 Wetzel, Musicology, 28.

146 Swan, Scriabin, 29.

143

74

1. The Stylistic Evolution from Op. 8 to Op. 42 The Eight Etudes Op. 42 set has the following key-scheme: 1. D-flat major, Presto.

2. F-sharp minor.147 3. F-sharp major, Prestissimo.

4. F-sharp major, Andante.

5. C-sharp minor, Affannato.

6. D-flat major, Esaltato.

7. F minor, Agitato.

8. E-flat major, Allegro.

There is no apparent overarching tonal plan, yet enharmonically, the Etudes Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are centered around D-flat/C-sharp and the Etudes Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are centered around F-sharp. The remaining etudes: Nos. 7 and 8 fill a scale between D-flat and F-sharp.

One will notice the affinity that Scriabin has developed for the sharp and flat keys. Scriabin associated tonal areas with certain colors, “something which he became aware of when he attended a concert with Rimsky-Korsakov and remarked that a D minor work just performed appeared yellow to him. Rimsky-Korsakov informed Scriabin that the key of D minor appeared golden to him. Scriabin became aware of his spontaneous color perception only for pieces in C (red), D (yellow) and F-sharp (blue)”. 148 The exact year that Scriabin became consciously aware of it is unknown, but occurred before Rimsky-Korsakov’s death in 1908, thus before Scriabin’s Prometheus Op. 60. It was only in the Prometheus that he explicitly notated the part for colored lights using pitches on a musical staff, and later supplemented this with a detailed written description. The use of musical notation allowed Scriabin to achieve an unprecedented level of precision regarding the coordination of colors, durations, lighting dynamics, 147

148

No tempo marking, only the metronome marking: quarter note = 112.

Cretien van Campen, The Hidden Sense: Synesthesia in Art and Science, MIT Press, 2010, 52.

75

special effects, and musical events.149 It appears that Scriabin’s preference for sharp and flat keys (tonal areas far away from C major) in the middle period works was already pointing him in the direction of key areas and their special coloristic significance, even if it was not an entirely conscious decision.

2. Eight Etudes Op. 42: The Pianistic Techniques It is apparent that many of the Eight Etudes Op. 42 no longer focus on a specific pianistic technique. Instead, they often explore a unique texture which may in fact be a synthesis of a variety of techniques. The same could be said of the Chopin in some of his preludes and etudes.150 A brief overview of the main texture and/or pianistic device used in each of the Eight Etudes Op. 42 will give the reader some insight on the evolution of Scriabin’s piano writing and treatment of the etude genre in his middle period, after which one will be ready to analyze and discuss a specific etude with a focus on harmonic development in the middle period works.

The Etude in D-flat major, Op. 42, No. 1 (Ex. 62) focuses on the execution of cross-rhythms. The widely-spaced right hand figuration still shows a Chopin influence at this point.

149

Justin Towsend, “Scriabin and the Possible”, Journal Society of Music Theory, Vol. 18/2, June 2012, 2.

“An étude proper, be it only a mechanical exercise or a characteristic piece, is distinguished from all other musical forms by the fact that it is invariably evolved from a single phrase or motif, be it of a harmonic or melodious character, upon which the changes are rung. Thus many of Bach's preludes in the Well-Tempered Clavier and the like, could be called études without a misnomer.” George Grove, A dictionary of music and musicians, New York, Macmillan, 1910, 794.

150

76

Ex 62. Scriabin Etude in D-flat major, Op. 42, No. 1 One can observe the prominent use of the seventh chord sonority in the left hand, all above a tonic pedal-tone. The extensive use of pedal-tones was a feature of his early works as well, as were the complex cross-rhythms that can be observed here. Note the far greater abundance of added ninths in the harmony. This is an influence of Chopin (and more importantly for the middle period: Liszt and Wagner). Scriabin resolves all the ninths stepwise and down, to a consonance. In the later works, he would take the seventh chord sonority with added dissonances and use it as a stand-alone vertical structure. 151 Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 42, despite the prolongation of the dominant harmony and the apparent harmonic ambiguity, still remain within the bounds of diatonic harmony. All the dissonances resolve to a tonic D-flat major chord at the end of the etude, in a V-I progression. This kind of bass motion will be avoided entirely in Scriabin’s late period works precisely because of the diatonic implications.

The Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 42, No. 2 (Ex. 63) will be analyzed later on in this chapter and compared with the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 in the same key. It is one of the more harmonically innovative etudes in the set, however, like most of Scriabin’s

151

As mentioned earlier, while the Mystic Chord may be understood as a dominant seventh chord with added notes, it does not function as such. Rather, it is a vertical manifestation of the acoustic and octatonic modes.

77

middle period compositions, it ultimately stays within a diatonic framework. The main pianistic difficulties are centered around the tone production and pedaling in the highly individual texture. The quintuplet figuration remains the main pattern in the left hand and is briefly transferred over to the right hand in the middle of the etude.

Ex 63. Scriabin Etude in F-sharp minor, Op. 42, No. 2

The Etude in F-sharp major, Op. 42, No. 3 (Ex. 64), focuses on trill-like triplet figurations in the right hand, which are occasionally taken up by the left hand as well.

Ex. 64. Scriabin Etude in F-sharp major, Op. 42, No. 3

While the left hand figuration creates some harmonic vagueness, the underlying major and minor triads emerge towards the end of each measure as the non-harmonic tones resolve. Traditional bass motion by fourths and fifths is avoided for the most part, until the V-I cadence at the end of the work.

78

The fourth etude of the set, also in F-sharp major, confirms Scriabin’s affinity for that tonal area, especially in the middle period (Ex. 65). Scriabin explores a method of gradually unfolding the harmony down to the fundamental bass note, so that the incomplete sonorities are fleshed out by the left hand and understood by the listener only in retrospect. The downbeats highlight incomplete chords, which creates tonal ambiguity.

Note that the non-harmonic tones all resolve towards the end of each measure. This textural device can often be observed in Scriabin’s middle and late period works.

Ex. 65. Scriabin Etude in F-sharp major, Op. 42, No. 4 The early period, an especially prolific time for Scriabin, did not have many works written in F-sharp major. There were only four (all piano miniatures): Impromptu Op. 7, No. 2 (1892), Impromptu Op. 12, No. 1 (1895), Prelude Op. 16, No. 5 (1895), and the Mazurka Op. 25, No. 6 (1899). By the middle period, the piano works in F-sharp major included: Piano Sonata No. 4, Op. 30 (1903), Poème Op. 32, No. 2 (1903), Prelude Op. 33, No. 2 (1903), Prelude Op. 37, No. 2 (1903), Prelude Op. 39, No. 1 (1903), Mazurka Op. 40, No. 2 (1903), Etudes Op. 42, Nos. 3 and 4 (1903), Prelude Op. 48, No. 1 (1905), and the Piano Sonata No. 5, Op. 53 (1907).

79

It is possible that Scriabin was seeking complexity with that choice of tonal area.

F-sharp major is theoretically the most distant key (a tritone away) from C major, which is the least complex tonal area, containing no sharps and or flats. In the late period works, the harmony is often centered around two bass notes, a tritone apart, either of which can function as the root of each chord.

As mentioned earlier, Scriabin’s synesthesia—his association of color with a specific key area (always a tonal area and not any isolated note)—was reportedly limited only to three keys: C (red), D (yellow) and F-sharp (blue-violet). 152 This was confirmed in several sources, including The British Journal of Psychology. 153 In an article there, Charles S. Myers summarized his findings after testing Scriabin’s hearing (with regard to synesthesia) during the latter’s visits to England (c. 1914). He confirmed that individual pitches did not conjure up any color for Scriabin. Furthermore, Scriabin himself—during one of his sessions with Myers—explained that a single pitch cannot occur by itself and is always accompanied by its overtones: There is always a psychical struggle between the tone and its overtone. The harmonies the Prometheus [Op. 60] are based upon the overtone 7-13 of a fundamental, and produce what he terms a single sound, one that is not always easily analyzable.154 Scriabin’s Etude in C-sharp minor Op. 42, No. 5 (Ex. 66 on the following page) is one of the most frequently performed etudes in the set. The main pianistic difficulties here are the extended left hand figurations and the shifts between positions.

152

Campen, Synesthesia, 52.

Charles S. Myers, “Two Cases of Synaesthesia”, The British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 7, 1914-15, 112-15.

154 Ibid., 114.

153

80

Ex. 66. Scriabin Etude In C-sharp minor, Op. 42, No. 5 Again, notice Scriabin’s increasing affinity of figurations that unfold down to the fundamental bass note. The harmony is incomplete on the downbeats and acquires a distinctly different sonority as it is fleshed out by the additional left hand notes. It is a more subtle way of treating the extended pedal tones in the bass, markedly different from the clear downbeat fundamental bass notes in the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 discussed earlier.

The Etude 42, No. 6 (Ex. 67) features mixed arpeggiated figurations in the right hand. One can see how many of the Etudes Op. 42 move away from the traditional etude genre, which was generally limited to one specific pianistic device, presented in various positions. Instead, they focus on one texture, which in this case, includes an unusual quintuplet figuration in the right hand, against the left hand triplets.

Ex. 67. Scriabin Etude in D-flat major, Op. 42, No. 6

81

The right hand figuration consists of occasional double-notes seamlessly incorporated into a texture of single notes, a texture which can be found in many Chopin piano works. Franz Liszt also uses this device in many of his original piano works and transcriptions, as does Mily Balakirev and others (see examples 68 and 69). 155

Ex. 68. Chopin Ballade No 4, coda (1842) and Liszt Transcendental Etude No. 10 (1852)

Ex. 69. Brahms Paganini Variations, Book 2 Var. 8 (1863) and Balakirev Islamey (1869)

The penultimate etude in the set: Op 42, No. 7 in F minor (Ex. 70), has a similar texture to the preceding one. Note the similarity to the coda of Chopin’s Ballade No. 4 in the same key (Ex. 68). This brief work features the same pianistic texture throughout. It is also the least harmonically explorative etude in the opus.

155

Chapter 6 traces the origins of Scriabin’s late period harmonic innovations, which were building on the compositional techniques explored by earlier composers, including: Liszt, Mussorgsky, Balakirev, RimskyKorsakov.

82

Ex. 70. Scriabin Etude in F major, Op. 42, No. 7

While there is a similarity to Chopin’s piano writing (Ex. 71), the rhythmical aspects of Scriabin’s are more complex.

Ex. 71. Chopin Etude in A-flat major, Op. 10, No. 10 The final etude in the set: Op. 42, No. 8 in E-flat major (Ex. 72 on the following page), is another etude in polyrhythms. Just as in the Etudes Op. 42 Nos. 1, 2 and 6, and the Etudes Op. 8 Nos. 2 and 4, Scriabin’s prolific use of quintuplets is apparent and is one distinct feature of his piano writing which can be found in all three of his stylistic periods. The overall design is similar to Scriabin’s Etude in B-flat minor, Op. 8, No. 7.

The contrasting B-section of the Etude Op. 42, No. 8 has some textural resemblance to the analogous section of the Etude Op. 8, No. 7 (Ex. 73).

83

Ex. 72. Scriabin Etude in E-flat major, Op. 42, No. 8

Ex. 73. Scriabin Op. 42, No. 8, B section

Scriabin Op. 8, No. 7, B section

The analysis of the Etude in F-sharp minor Op. 42, No. 2 in the next part of this chapter gives more insight into the advances in pianistic texture and harmony in Scriabin’s middle period works.

84

3. Analysis of the Etude Op. 42, No. 2 in F-sharp minor The most obvious point of similarity between the Scriabin Etude Op. 8, No. 2 and the Op. 42, No. 2 is the choice of key (F-sharp minor) and the prominent quintuplet figuration. Scriabin’s harmonic language did not yet move past the traditional lateromantic diatonic progressions of the Twelve Etudes Op. 8, and the underlying harmony of the left hand can easily be extracted and reduced down to a chord.

Ex. 74. Scriabin Op. 42, No. 2, two-note contrapuntal motive in the left hand.

Examining the first four measures of the etude (Ex. 74 above), one can observe some similarity with the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 written nine years earlier. Every note value (and rhythmic figure) that is used throughout the entire work is introduced in the first four-measure phrase, similar in design to the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 analyzed in Chapter 2.

The most immediate difference in the Op. 42, No. 2 is the presence of the quintuplet contrapuntal motive in every measure, which serves to obscure the harmony on a surface level.

85

The seeming harmonic complexity is generated by the pianistic figuration, which is derived from Chopin’s piano writing (yet further evolved). One can also extract an additional contrapuntal line from the two-note motive present in the left hand (highlighted in Ex. 74 on the previous page). The consistency in the voice-leading confirms the importance of that secondary line.

When examining the score, one can easily extract the underlying harmonies based on the figuration. However, due to the vagueness of the rhythmic figuration and the way in which it interacts with the melody notes in the right hand, one may not perceive the underlying harmonic progression simply by listening to the etude.

The left hand figuration of this etude is based on a consistent motive (featured throughout, see excerpt below), which is characterized by the use of a lower incomplete neighboring tone and an upper incomplete neighbor, side-by-side.

The use of a prominent motive to generate figuration is not a distinct innovation of Scriabin. J.S. Bach was one of the first composers to embellish a harmonic progression with a continuous figuration based on one motivic principle; many of his chorale preludes for organ feature this compositional technique. Chopin also employed these principles, most likely influenced by his own study of Bach’s works. One can observe a continuous left hand figuration which embellishes the underlying harmony with non-harmonic passing and neighboring notes in Chopin’s Etude in E-flat minor, Op. 10, No. 6, published in 1833 (Ex. 75).

86

Ex. 75. Chopin Etude in E-flat minor, Op. 10, No. 6 Scriabin went quite a bit further than Chopin, as his figurations are more rhythmically complex, and the resulting vertical sonorities often create non-functional passing harmonies. This starts to blur the distinction between the underlying traditional harmonic progression, and the second layer of implied harmony created by the figuration.

In the Scriabin Etude Op. 42, No. 2, the underlying harmony is decorated with an upper and lower neighbor within the quintuplet figuration (see pg. 85). Many of these neighboring notes also generate consonant sonorities, which hint at additional passing harmonies, creating tonal ambiguity. The third note of each figuration (generally nonharmonic) coincides with the melody note in the right hand, after which it resolves stepwise and down. The harmony is made clear to the listener only after the nonharmonic notes resolve, and even then, the notes within each quintuplet figuration smudge slightly together on the pedal (see harmonic reduction of the left hand in the first two phrases, mm. 1-8, below). Note the prominent use of the half-diminished 4-3 chord.

87

The eight-measure antecedent-consequent phrase structure is made clear by the harmonic reduction on the previous page. It is a feature of Scriabin’s works in all his stylistic periods. Note the use of the common-tone harmonic progression in the left hand.156 The pitch - A (the common-tone for the first five harmonies in the left hand) further clarifies the harmonic progression, which is already coherent as a result of the excellent voice-leading. The prominent use of chords in 6-3 position (even in the first measure of the piece) creates some tonal ambiguity as opposed to the extensive use of tonic pedal-tones in the Etude Op. 8, No. 2 analyzed earlier.

4. Rhythmic Complexity and the Perception of Harmony The Etude Op. 42, No. 2 features a rhythmically vague right hand melody which obscures the downbeat. Curiously the etude starts with a rhythmic irregularity: one can always count ten total notes per measure in the left hand, except for the initial pick-up measure. Throughout the etude, there are always two sets of quintuplets in the left hand, the start of which never corresponds to the underlying harmonic motion or the rhythm of the melody in the right hand. Furthermore, Scriabin beams the quintuplet figurations over the bar line.

The etude starts on a non-harmonic note: the left hand harmony outlines F# minor in 6/3 position (see pg. 86), with the left hand figuration based on neighboring tones. The right hand, if played by itself, presents a melody with clear harmonic implications. There is a contrast between the vague left hand figurations and the right hand downbeats with

156

Common-tone progressions will become an important feature of his late period works, within a new harmonic system.

88

their own harmonic implications. This is a notable characteristic of Scriabin’s middle period compositions. As mentioned earlier in this dissertation, Scriabin was seeking a new harmonic language to fully match his evolving philosophical ideas at the time when the Etudes Op. 42 were composed. In this particular etude, Scriabin creates new, nonfunctional sonorities through a figuration which is actually based on a traditional underlying harmonic progression. He adds another layer of complexity with the right hand melody.

Note that the right hand, when examined independent of the left (Ex. 76), outlines a harmonic progression: from the tonic (I) in the first 2 measures, to a subdominant (IV) in measure 3, followed by a clear half cadence from the Neapolitan chord (flat II) to a dominant (V). In his late period works, Scriabin uses this type of Neapolitan to V progression—which contains a root motion by tritone—in an entirely new system of harmony.

Ex. 76. The right hand by itself, outlines a clear harmonic progression, independent of the left hand.

89

In performance, as the rhythmically offset left hand figurations are heard together with the right hand on the strong beats, the resulting vertical sonorities create another layer of perceived harmony.

Ex. 77. Reduction of mm. 1-4. The rhythmic irregularities are simplified in this free fourpart reduction in order to highlight the harmony Thus, one can see that there are several layers of harmony present, namely: the left hand figuration and the underlying harmony implied by it, the harmonic progression outlined by right hand, and the harmony created on the downbeats. This is a defining trait of the middle period works.

The reduction (Ex. 77) is perhaps closest to what the listener perceives on a surface level. The prominence of the perfect fourth as a vertical interval should be noted as it was also a feature of his early period works, particularly in many of the Etudes Op. 8. The left hand figurations also use the perfect fourth and tritone extensively (see Ex. 78). In the late period works, many of the harmonies are generated by stacking fourths and tritones.

Ex. 78. The left hand figurations, with all the perfect fourths emphasized.

90

In his Etude Op. 42, No. 2, written in the first year of the middle period, Scriabin was already seeking a new harmonic language by adding layers of figuration which created several levels of harmonic perception for the listener. However, the chords which can be extracted from the figuration are all based on a traditional harmonic motion, with clear cadences. What truly sets this etude apart from Op. 8 No. 2 (analyzed earlier) is Scriabin’s innovative use of rhythmic displacement between the melody and harmony to create additional levels of harmonic perception.

5. The Form of the Etude Op. 42, No. 2 The Etude Op. 42, No. 2 is composed almost entirely of four-measure phrases which all end in a cadence. This was a notable feature of the Etude Op. 8, No. 2, as well as his other miniatures of the early period such as the Twenty Preludes, Op. 11.

Scriabin’s first middle period work in sonata form—the Piano Sonata No. 4 in F-sharp major (note the preference of key)—is also composed of tightly-structured four and eight measure phrases. Scriabin was consciously simplifying the form of his compositions and bringing it down to a minimum, so that the listener would be better able to grasp the increasingly complex harmony.

Anatole Leikin, in his book The Performing Style of Alexander Scriabin, notes that the various piano roll recordings made by Scriabin (unfortunately not including any of the works discussed in the dissertation) reveal that Scriabin’s tempo-rubato would obscure the square, symmetrical nature of the phrasing.

91

Leikin writes: We turn to the procedures found in Scriabin’s [reproducing piano roll] recordings.

The monotony of long cycles of four-measure phrases will disappear, because these phrases will vary greatly in length and come out as if spontaneously improvised on the spot. Climaxes, buttressed by accelerations and decelerations will expand to exhilarating heights.157 The same can be said of recordings of Scriabin’s works by the great Russian pianist Vladimir Sofronitsky (1901-1961), who recorded all of the etudes discussed in this dissertation; as well as Samuil Feinberg’s (1890-1962) Scriabin recordings: particularly the Concerto in F-sharp minor Op. 20, and Piano Sonatas Nos. 2, 4 and 5, which are all available commercially.

157

Anatole Leikin, The Performing Style of Alexander Scriabin, University of California, Ashgate Publishing, 2011, 279.

92

Chapter 4. Mysticism and Theosophy: A Background

Scriabin first became acquainted with mystic ideas through his association with Prince Sergei Trubetskoy c. 1900. Bowers writes: Aside from his chair as reader in philosophy at Moscow University, Trubetskoy was also president of the Moscow Philosophical Society. However, he was only a shadow through whom shone Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), [a philosopher and mystic] who had exhorted Russia to be a nation of god-seeking, god-building ‘allhuman’ belonging to ‘all-unity’... Scriabin’s [own] philosophy above all else wanted to turn sound into ecstasy.158 One of the earliest and most comprehensive books on mysticism was written in 1911 by the English writer Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941). She devoted her life first to the discovery of the mystics of the past, writing several books and many articles popularizing mysticism. Although not highly educated in a formal way, her research into original texts brought public recognition.159 Underhill described mysticism as the process during which the consciousness of the individual progresses towards unity with “the absolute”.

Broadly speaking, I understand mysticism to be the innate tendency of the human spirit towards the complete harmony with the transcendental order, whatever be the theological formula under which that order is understood. This tendency, in great mystics, gradually captures the whole field of consciousness, it dominates their life and, in the experience called ‘mystic union,’ attains its end. I believe this process to represent the true line of development of the highest form of human consciousness. 160 According to Underhill, the typical mystic would “move towards their goal through a series of strongly marked oscillations between states of pleasure and pain.” 161

158

Bowers, Biography, 1:321.

Anne E. Carr, review of Evelyn Underhill: Artist of the Infinite Life by Dana Greene, New York, 1990, 2.

160 Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism. A Study in Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness, 1911, repr., Dover Publications, New York (2002), xiv.

161 Ibid., 68.

159

93

In her 1911 book: Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness, Underhill described the stages that a mystic goes through in order to attain his or her goal of unity with “the absolute” or “the divine”: 1. Awakening: The awakening of the Self to consciousness of Divine Reality.

This experience, usually abrupt and well-marked, is accompanied by intense feelings of joy and exaltation.

2. Purgation: The Self, aware for the first time of Divine Beauty, realizes by contrast its own finiteness and imperfection. Its attempts to eliminate by discipline and mortification all that stands in the way of its progress towards union with God constitute Purgation: a state of pain and effort.

3. Illumination: A state which includes in itself many of the stages of contemplation “degrees of orison, visions and adventures of the soul”, as described by St. Teresa and other mystical writers. Many mystics never go beyond it; and, on the other hand, many seers and artists not usually classed amongst them, have shared, to some extent, the experiences of the illuminated state. Illumination brings a certain apprehension of the Absolute, a sense of the Divine Presence: but not true union with it.

4. Mystic Death: The consciousness which had, in Illumination, sunned itself in the sense of the Divine Presence, now suffers under an equally intense sense of the Divine Absence: learning to dissociate the personal satisfaction of mystical vision from the reality of mystical life. The human instinct for personal happiness must be killed. This is the “spiritual crucifixion” so often described by the mystics: the great desolation in which the soul seems abandoned by the Divine.

5. Union (or Ecstasy): the true goal of the mystic quest. In this state the Absolute Life is not merely perceived and enjoyed by the Self, as in Illumination: but is one with it. This is the end towards which all the previous oscillations of consciousness have tended. It is a state of equilibrium, of purely spiritual life; characterized by peaceful joy, by enhanced powers, by intense certitude. 162

162

Underhill, Mysticism, 169-170.

94

In his introduction to The Notebooks of Alexander Skryabin (sic), Simon Nicholls writes on the significance of “ecstasy” as it relates to Scriabin: The concept of ecstasy as leading to intuitive understanding is also found in Russian philosophy and literature. [It] is central to Scriabin’s world of thought.

Through the Moscow philosopher Sergei Trubetskoy, Scriabin became familiar with philosophies ranging from the ancient Greeks to the work of Solovyov. An essay, Keys to Secrets by Bryusov, first read as a lecture in Moscow in 1903, speaks of moments of ecstasy as making possible a more profound and penetrating insight. Solovyov [also] insisted on the importance of ecstatic inspiration in creative work.163 It is clear that the main ideas of mysticism found their way into Scriabin’s own thoughts, preserved in his notebooks. As mentioned earlier, interest in mysticism and Theosophy was a fashionable trend amongst Russian intellectuals starting from the 1890s.

The principal elements of Scriabin’s thoughts, as distilled from his notebooks, are summarized below: 1. The arts should combine (or recombine).

2. Art should reconnect with its mystical origins and unite mankind in a spiritual sense.

3. The world was on the brink of a new era, and art (Scriabin’s art in particular) had a crucial role to play in bringing that era into being.

4. The basis of artistic creation and of meaningful insight was ecstatic inspiration.

5. The higher self is identical with the divine principle, and the artists’ work is equivalent to the creation of the universe. 164

163 164

Nicholls, Notebooks, 3.

Ibid., 4.

95

Walter Terence Stace (1886-1967), an English-born philosopher who taught at Princeton, wrote several books on mysticism and is often cited when the subject is discussed. He described mysticism in his 1960 book The Teachings of the Mystics: The most important, the central characteristic in which all fully developed mystical experiences agree, and which in the last analysis is definitive of them and serves to mark them off from other kinds of experiences, is that they involve the apprehension of an ultimate nonsensuous unity in all things, a oneness or a One to which neither the senses nor the reason can penetrate. In other words, it entirely transcends our sensory-intellectual consciousness. 165 These same ideas shaped Scriabin’s approach to composition, which he described in a notebook dated 1904-1905: “I distinguish. I create multiplicity and unity. I designate each of the distinctions with the word ‘one’, whereas the totality of everything I name multiplicity.”166 This matches with Schloezer’s descriptions of Scriabin’s methods of composition: he started with a general idea of the form and gradually filled in the musical material (see page 57). Scriabin’s thoughts of Unity and Multiplicity were shared by other Russian artists at time.

Interest in mysticism and the occult around the turn of the century in Russia was sparked by several factors. Einstein and his 1905 Theory of Relativity ushered in a new era of scientific progress and new frontiers awaited. At the same time, there was a growing interest in Nietzsche167, “as old institutions and values in Russia were at an ideological deadlock and a craving for new paradigms came into being.” 168 Maria Carlson writes: “In the small, intimate world of the Russian intelligentsia, in which Scriabin lived, there was a frantic attempt to cope creatively with the decay of old cultural values, to

165

Walter T. Stace, The Teachings of the Mystics, New American Library, 1960, 14.

Nicholls, Notebooks, 92.

167 Nietzsche believed that every person could become their own god, which he referred to as the Übermensch (Superman). See Nel Grillaert, What the God-seekers Found in Nietzsche: The Reception of Neitzche's Übermensch by the Philosophers of the Russian Religious Renaissance, Rodopi, 2008, 2.

168 Grillaert, Nietzsche, 20.

166

96

escape creatively from the impending crisis of culture”. 169 Scriabin was not alone in his theosophical interests. Many creative artists in Russia felt that a knowledge of theosophy and mysticism enhanced the quality of their works. This included modernist painters Nikolai Roerich, Margarita Sabashnikova, and Vasily Kandinsky, poets Konstantin Bal'mont, Nikolai Minsky, Max Voloshin, and Andrei Belyi, as well as philosophers such as Vladimir Solovyov170 and Nikolai Berdiaev.171 The evolution of Scriabin’s harmonic thought rapidly accelerated during the last decade of his life. In a letter addressed to his lover Tatiana de Schloezer, dated May 5 (O.S. April 22) 1905, Scriabin wrote: “La Clef de la Theosophie [The Key to Theosophy

by Blavatsky] is a remarkable book. You would be astonished how much it has in common with me.”172 Scriabin also became increasingly interested in India. Swan writes: “He read omnivorously all the available literature on India and experienced a keen delight in finding what a close resemblance there was between his cosmos and the mysteries of the East. In particular, Scriabin borrowed the terms manvanataras and pralayas, referring to alternating periods of activity and passivity, multiplicity and unity, in the universe.”173 However, as Mitchell writes, “his adoption of theosophy, like his adoption of other philosophical systems [earlier in life], was partial at best... [mirroring] the eclecticism that was typical of popular occult practices in Russia at the time.” 174

169

Maria Carlson, "Fashionable Occultism: The Theosophical World of Silver Age Russia." Quest Magazine, Spring 2011, 2.

170 Yuri Engel, another Scriabin biographer, dates the beginning of the friendship between Scriabin and Trubetskoy as c 1900. Prince Trubetskoy, introduced Scriabin into the Philosophical Society of Moscow, whose meetings Scriabin regularly attended. See Nicholls, Notebooks, 14.

171 Ibid., 14.

172 Scriabin was reading a French translation of the first edition. See Ibid., 19.

173 Mitchell, Orphans, 78.

174 Ibid., 78.

97

Schloezer, who knew Scriabin intimately, also confirmed this: At our early meetings I had an impression that Scriabin’s philosophical knowledge was quite extensive. Later on, however, I realized that was rather scant and that his knowledge of history and exact sciences was also superficial. Reading gave him no opportunity to engage in direct debate, as a result, almost all the information he possessed on science and philosophy was derived from conversations of these topics.175 Scriabin’s own notebooks reveal which mystic concepts (from Blavatsky and others) he ended up absorbing as his own.

1. The Silver Age The Silver Age in Russia lasted roughly from 1890 through 1914, coinciding with the start of Scriabin’s career as a composer and ending around the time of his last completed work.176 Anatole Leikin writes: That era [The Silver Age] was... the beginning of the Russian symbolist movement based on religious and philosophical ideas that supposedly, could be fully comprehensible only to those who had been initiated into the mysterious kingdom of symbols. Moscow became the center of symbolism in Russia.

Scriabin’s [social circle] included musicians, poets, scholars, philosophers, painters, actors, and stage directors. To them Scriabin was a prophet, and even more than that – a creator, a real divinity. The artists of the Silver Age showed a keen interest in the synthesis of the arts, in mystic revelations and in attempting to understand the great mysteries of the universe. 177 It was only in his late period compositions that Scriabin’s music fell in line with the ideas of the Russian symbolist movement. Bowers describes the social activities of the last years of his life. “Scriabin’s apartment became a Mecca for an outer circle of foreign visitors - Gordon, Coates, Casals, Busoni. Symbolist, imagist, futurist poets paid visits.

175

Schloezer, Mystic, 70.

Note that Scriabin did not publish or complete any works after the Preludes Op. 74 (1914), though he lived another year until his death on April 14, 1915.

177 Leikin, Style, 2.

176

98

Scriabin’s heart was closest to the symbolist poets, and the whole literary temperament of Russia evolved around symbolists”.178 All of Scriabin’s late period compositions were his attempt to express mystic ideas through music.

2. The Mysterium and the Late Piano Works Scriabin’s fascination with Theosophy and mysticism during the last decade of his life inspired his unfinished Mystery, or what is better known in the literature as the Mysterium (Prefatory Act). The surviving sketches of this magnum opus indicate a progression towards clarity and simplicity, as do all the works starting from his Prometheus Op. 60. Scriabin wrote in a letter to a friend: The Mysterium will have enormous simplification. Everybody thinks that I make everything more and more complex. I do, but in order to surmount complexity, to move away from it. I must attain the summit of complexity in order to become simple. The Preparatory Act I [of the Mysterium] will have two-note harmonies and unisons.179 Scriabin’s Mysterium was envisioned as a rite lasting seven days in India, in which the audience would participate in the all-encompassing event, including music, dance, speech as well as an incorporation of projected colors and even perfumes. Nuno Cernadas writes in his Master’s Thesis: “The public would not only experience this art work but actively participate in it, using dance as the medium to enter a state of trance, of ecstatic bliss that would lead to the dematerialization of all things and the fusion with the Oneness, hence bringing forth the Apocalypse.”180 This ties in to the overall ideas of mysticism discussed earlier.

178

Bowers, Biography, 2:239.

Morrison, Opera, 229.

180 Nuno Cernadas, “Alexander Scriabin: Aesthetic Development through Selected Piano Works”, Master’s Thesis, Hochschule für Musik Freiburg, 2013, 76.

179

99

Many of the experimental sonorities of the Mysterium sketches are found in virtually every work of the late period, especially chords built by perfect fifths and tritones. “While Scriabin thought over his Mysterium—in conversation, schemes, plans and poems—and sketched its themes, motifs and moments, fragments of the music kept shaping into individual entities [his published compositions]”, writes Bowers.

181

The 12-note chord and Scriabin’s 8-note reduction from the Mysterium sketches suggest that Scriabin was experimenting with building chords using one interval as the basis for pitch organization (see Ex. 79 below). In the 8-note chord, that interval is the perfect fifth.182

Ex. 79. 12-note and 8-note chords from the sketches of the unfinished Mysterium183 The 3 Etudes Op. 65, written in 1912, are the only works in Scriabin’s output that feature such highly restrictive intervallic techniques. Each etude in the opus is focused on one specific interval in the right hand: major ninths in the Op. 65 No. 1, major sevenths in the Op. 65 No. 2 and perfect fifths in the Op. 65 No. 3.

181

Bowers, Biography, 2:229.

Ibid., 2:326.

183 Reproduced from the surviving 15-page manuscript of Scriabin’s Mysterium: Prefatory Act. 182

100

As mentioned previously, Scriabin first employed an entirely new method of harmony in his orchestral work Prometheus Op. 60 (1910). This was his only finished composition which (partially) realized his goal of unifying the arts. Swan writes: Certain elements of the Mystery [more on this later] are obviously found here.

The chorus - Scriabin wished to see dressed in white robes to give the whole a festal, ritualistic appearance. Is this not a foretaste of the mystery in which all to the number of 2000 were to be performers? Most remarkable of all, the score provides for a clavier a lumiere. This new instrument, shaped like a toneless piano, would cast the concert hall into the most beautiful symphony of colors. 184 The original program notes for Prometheus Op. 60, printed in the booklet at the work’s 1911 Moscow premiere (authorized by Scriabin and written by Leonid Sabaneyev), are connected to Blavatsky’s writings. Scriabin’s text begins: Prometheus, Satan, and Lucifer all meet in ancient myth. They represent the active energy of the universe, its creative principle. The fire is light, life, struggle, abundance, thought. 185 This is a paraphrase of Blavatsky’s description of the Lucifer/Prometheus figure in her Secret Doctrine: Satan, [or Lucifer], represents the active, or . . . the ‘Centrifugal Energy of the Universe’ in a cosmic sense. He is [the] Fire, Light, Life, Struggle, Effort, Thought, Consciousness, Progress, Civilization, Liberty, Independence. 186 It is quite clear that Blavatsky’s writings, centered around the ideas of mysticism and theosophy, had a direct influence on Scriabin’s own philosophical writings and in turn, the new harmonic system of his late period (which appeared in his Prometheus). Scriabin wrote in his notebooks c. 1904-1905: From center to center. Centrifugal and centripetal forces, the desire for activity and the desire for repose… With time individuality develops more and more and the rhythmic figure finishes as all-embracing individuality - as God. 187 184

Swan, Scriabin, 98.

Leonid Sabaneyev, program notes for the March 2, 1911 premiere of Prometheus in Moscow.

186 Gawboy, Prometheus, 30.

187 Nicholls, Notebooks, 71.

185

101

An examination of Scriabin’s philosophical writings preserved in his notebooks reveal that he was fascinated with mystic concepts before he found a way to express those ideas in his music. Several relevant extracts from Scriabin’s notebooks dating from 1904-1905 are reproduced below: Creation is the act of distinguishing. Only a multiplicity can be created. Space and time are forms of creation, sensations are its content… States of consciousness coexist… Space and time is not separable from sensation. It, together with sensation, is one single creative act… And so I wish to create... to bring into being a multiplicity, a multiplicity within a multiplicity and a oneness within a multiplicity.188 Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 65, like all of his works starting from Prometheus, Op. 60 (1910), were bound to a new compositional aesthetic. Sabaneyev (quoted by Nicholls), preserved Scriabin’s thoughts related to performance (and composition) in his late period: The effect of art on the psyche may evoke catharsis… in the highest manifestation it may evoke artistic ecstasy…. Even the performance of a work of art… become a divine sacrament… Art is not just a magical, invocatory element applied to theurgic testaments but a direct, effective path to knowledge. 189 Sabaneyev continues: From the primal creative languor, from a thirst for life in the spirit, a primal polarity is born, two principles: the masculine and the feminine. The exhausted Universe thirst for a miracle, the great final Act of Completion, the act of reunification of the Masculine—the Spirit-Creator—with the Feminine World; material strives to become spirit, in a passionate hunger for Death and Ecstasy the whole world is united and disappears in the contemplation of the Moment of Harmony. The new Messiah [Scriabin himself] will grant mankind a moment of universal harmony through the liturgical Act of a Mystery. 190 These concepts helped shape Scriabin’s new approach to harmony, as the detailed analysis of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 in the next chapter will reveal.

188

Nicholls, Notebooks, 75-76.

Ibid., 216.

190 Ibid., 218.

189

102

Chapter 5. Background on the Three Etudes Op. 65

While Scriabin was preoccupied with his Mysterium project, which was so grand in scope that it turned out to be unrealizable, he continued to compose many works for piano solo. In the summer of 1911, Scriabin composed the Piano Sonata No. 6, Op. 62 and Piano Sonata No. 7, Op. 64. (Reportedly, he never performed the Sonata Op. 62, which was his first large-scale piano work based on his new harmonic system). Scriabin himself wrote about his innovative approach to harmony in the late piano works: Why were harmony and melody separated in Classical music? Because there was a polarity between tonic and dominant: the dominant harmony gravitated towards the tonic. My polarity is not that of [the] tonic and dominant, but rather of these two chords separated by a diminished fifth. It is completely analogous to the tonic-dominant progression, the cadence in the Classical system, only on a different level, one ‘storey’ higher. 191 Sabaneyev believed that this polarity was connected to Scriabin’s philosophical beliefs.

Bowers quotes Sabaneyev: He theorized that the spirit of evil plays a sad role in Christian theodicy, but for Scriabin it was not something wicked at all. He was sympathetic to it and called it the creative spirit. Never once did he mention God in connection with the creation of the world. To Scriabin it had been the work of Lucifer. 192 That is in fact a clear reference to Madame H.P. Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine, published in 1888, a book which Scriabin read closely in 1905. 193 The concept of the polarity, specifically the tritone relationship (along with the static nature of the harmony) is apparent in Scriabin’s 3 Etudes Op. 65. After a Russian tour, the famous conductor Willem Mengelberg engaged Scriabin for three concerts in

191

Leonid Sabaneyev, Vospominaniya o Skryabine [Reminiscences of Scriabin], Moscow, 1925, 260.

Bowers, Biography, 2:232.

193 Scriabin generally admired the writings which were already aligned with his way of thinking. He read Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine many times, marking in pencil the most significant passages. See Sabaneyev, Reminiscences, 71.

192

103

Holland in October 1912, and one in Germany the following month. 194 On those occasions, Scriabin played the piano part in his own Prometheus, Op. 60, and appeared as a soloist in his Piano Concerto in F-sharp minor Op. 20. In June, Scriabin and Tatyana vacationed in Beatenberg, Switzerland and late that month, Scriabin wrote to Sabaneyev: I now inform you something pleasant for me, perhaps of indifference to you, and quite painful for all defenders of the classical faith: A composer whom you know had written three etudes. In fifths (horrors!), in ninths (how depraved!) and…. In major sevenths (the last fall from Grace!?) What will the world say? 195 Scriabin was referring to his 3 Etudes Op. 65. He never performed these works publicly, most likely due to the fact that he could not execute the etude Op. 65, No. 1 (in major ninths in the right hand) with a legato fingering due to his limited hand-span.

Interestingly, the celebrated pianist Vladimir Horowitz recorded and performed Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 65 except for Etude No. 1 (in ninths). He stated in a conversation with David Dubal: “I’ve always very much wanted to play that work. But I cannot do it.

My hand falls off, believe me”.196 One might reasonably assume, that as the 3 Etudes Op. 65 are evidently conceived as a cycle (more on that in the following pages), Scriabin did not want to perform them with the etude in ninths omitted.

194

Bowers, Biography, 2:235.

Ibid., 2:232.

196 David Dubal, Evenings with Horowitz: A Personal Portrait, Amadeus Press, 2004, 247.

195

104

1. The Three Etudes Op. 65: Their Place in Scriabin’s Output

While nine years separate the Op. 42 (1903) and Op. 65 (1912), it should be noted that there is another, lesser-known etude in Scriabin’s output: the Etude Op. 56 No. 4, composed during his American tour in 1907. 197 It was published in 1908 as part of the Quatre morceaux Op. 56, which consisted of the following pieces: Prelude, Ironies, Nuances and the Etude. That etude is an experimental work where Scriabin tried out extended progressions with a tritone motion in the bassline, something which is more characteristic of his late period works (Op. 60 and on). Bowers writes of the work: “The Presto etude was written in a new and magical style but he had not dared to try out [before] an audience”.198

Ex. 80. Scriabin Etude Op. 56, No. 4 (1907) However, at the time that this etude was written, Scriabin had not yet found a way to firmly establish a tonal center without resorting to a traditional V-I cadence; therefore he could not avoid at the end of this tonally ambiguous work (see Ex. 81 on the following page).

197

Sabaneyev recorded Scriabin’s thoughts on America: “America has a great future, there is a very strong mystic movement there. There is so much that is interesting in America, in the sense of its frame of mind.

They are producing a literature, and they will certainly have a contemporary music. After all, one writer like Edgar Allan Poe counts for very much”. See Bowers, Biography, 2:163.

198 Ibid., 2:163.

105

Ex. 81. The ending of Scriabin’s Etude Op. 56, No. 4 (1907) As mentioned in the introduction to this thesis, what truly set the works starting from the Prometheus, Op. 60 apart was the replacement of the traditional V-I relationship with a bass motion by tritone. 199 With the Mystic Chord (also known as the Chord of the Pleroma and the Synthetic Chord), Scriabin redefined the function of an inherently unstable sonority based around a dominant seventh chord, into a stable element needing no resolution. Even as late as 1908, in his Deux Morceaux, Op. 57 (Ex. 82), Scriabin could not avoid the traditional V-I cadence, something which is entirely missing in the works of his late period.200

Ex. 82. Ending of Op. 57, No. 1 Désir

199

Op. 57, No. 2 Caresse Dansé

Prometheus Op. 60 and the Deux morceaux Op. 59 (composed at the same time) mark the beginning of his late period style, as discussed in the introduction of this thesis.

200 The Etude Op. 56 (1907), Deux Morceaux, Op. 57 (1908), and Feuillet d'album, Op.58 (1908) are his last works employing the bass motion by fifth. See Ballard, Companion, 18.

106

In the 3 Etudes Op. 65, written 1911-1912, certain new traits of Scriabin’s late style become apparent. New ways of harmonic thought, with the Mystic Chord as the basis, created a need for a more sparse, clear and in some ways - minimalist piano texture. The harmonies have become more complex, yet the unfolding of the harmonic motion has become far slower.

This is perhaps why the mature Scriabin works were sometimes accused of being “static” and “harmonically monotonous” by contemporary critics. 201 A. Eaglefield Hull, wrote in an article published in the December 1, 1916 edition of The Musical Times: “The drawback [of] a system so arbitrarily confined to a few roots only, is the danger of incurring (despite the modern harmonies) a certain monotonous drab in tone and mood.”202 Scriabin’s choice of writing double note etudes restricted to a specific interval was likely influenced by Chopin’s Etudes Op. 25, No. 6 (featuring righty hand double thirds throughout) and Op. 25, No. 8 (right hand double sixths throughout). Once again, Scriabin went much further than Chopin by self-imposing a restriction on the specific quality of interval used - major ninths for the Op. 65, No. 1, major sevenths for the Op. 65, No. 2 and perfects fifths for the Op. 65, No. 3. 203 Curiously, Debussy (1862-1918), in his two books of etudes, limited the first book to specific intervals, and the second book to pianistic techniques and textures. His first book of Six Etudes written from July-September 1915 (published together with the

201

Ballard, Companion, 30.

A. Eaglefield Hull, “The Pianoforte Sonatas of Scriabin (continued)”, The Musical Times Vol. 57, No. 886, Dec 1, 1916, 540.

202

107

second book, in 1916) contained four etudes dedicated to specific intervals, namely: Nos 2. Pour les tierces, 3. Pour les quartes, 4. Pour les sixtes, and 5. Pour les octaves.

Debussy only cited Chopin as an influence for these etudes, but is it a coincidence that he focused on the remaining intervallic possibilities (aside from major or minor seconds) left over from Scriabin Op. 65, published three years earlier? 204 In her Master’s Thesis, Lana Forman attempted to link the restrictive intervallic techniques found in Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 65 with Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine, which was a mammoth work compiled from over a thousand sources, focusing on theosophy, human evolution, as well as science, religion, and mythology. Forman writes: It is curious to note that in the letter to Sabaneyev quoted earlier Scriabin talks about the études in fifths, ninths and sevenths, in that order. In the first printed edition published by Jurgenson the order of the études is different, however: the first one is in ninths, the second one is in sevenths, and the last one is in fifths. What was Scriabin’s rationale for putting the pieces in this particular order?... Could it be a certain ‘hidden’ message imbedded in the sequence of numbers nine, seven and five, discussed in The Secret Doctrine, which, according to Sabaneyev, Scriabin kept on this bedside table for nearly ten years?205

Forman goes on: If Scriabin had indeed ‘composed’ the cosmos in his Opus 65 according to his concept of music as the materialization of the occult, leading us into irrational, mystical, and ‘otherworldly’ domains of existence, what kind of existence, or a ‘small universe’ can Opus 65 represent? It appears that in these three études the one world is created with the ’cosmic’ trinity. The numbers nine, seven and five [prime numbers] are, respectively, the ‘triple deity’ ending the preceding cycle; the ‘Eternal’, expressing the connection of the macro and the micro, and the Microcosm of a ‘conscious’ man manifesting his creative will.206

There are several important omissions in Forman’s arguments. The Sacred Numbers in Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine were not limited to 9, 7 and 5. In fact, Blavatsky wrote in depth on the mystic significance of numbers 1 through 10 in her many publications,

204

See Marianne Wheeldon, Debussy's Late Style Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009, 56-60.

Forman, “Mysticism”, 67.

206 Ibid., 72.

205

108

including the Secret Doctrine. Looking at the relevant chapter in the Secret Doctrine discussing numbers, one can find several generalized statements which may have influenced Scriabin’s choice of intervals in his Op. 65.

Blavatsky writes: “The odd numbers are divine, the even numbers are terrestrial, devilish, and unlucky. The Pythagoreans hated the binary. With them it was the origin of differentiation, hence of contrasts, discord, or matter, the beginning of evil.” 207 Perhaps Scriabin’s choice of limiting the right hand intervals to the ninth, seventh and fifth (odd numbers 9, 7, 5) in his Etudes Op. 65 was related to that idea. Blavatsky continues: With the early Pythagoreans, however, the Duad was that imperfect state into which the first manifested being fell when it got detached from the Monad. It was the point from which the two roads - the Good and the Evil - bifurcated. All that which was double-faced or false was called by them ‘binary.’ One was alone Good, and Harmony, because no disharmony can proceed from one alone. 208 It is possible that Scriabin’s concept of “polarity” (see page 103) is related to the general mystic ideas of the Duad found in Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine.

Boris de Schloezer stated that Blavatsky’s myth of the successive races of humanity had a direct effect on the structure of Prometheus, Op. 60 and also influenced the intended form of the Mystery. Schloezer writes: In the winter of 1907-1908, he formalized the content and the subject of his Mystery as an evolutionary psychology of the human races. This phase of Scriabin’s spiritual development owed most to theosophy, which supplied him with the necessary formulas and schemes, particularly in the notion of Seven Races, which incarnated in space and time the gradual descent of psyche into matter.209

207

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Chicago, 1897, 2:575.

Ibid., 576 209 Schloezer, Mystic, 218.

208

109

Blavatsky believed that human evolution was divided into seven stages, known as root races, each containing seven sub-races. At the time that she wrote her Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky stated that humanity was in the 5th race: the Aryan root race, and that the 6th race would start evolving in the 21st century. 210 Ultimately, one can only speculate upon which specific aspects of Blavatsky’s writing may have influenced the Etudes Op. 65 directly.

Examining the tonal scheme of the Etudes Op. 65 set, one can discover a link between the tonal centers of each etude: Op. 65, No. 1: Tonal centers: E and B-flat Op. 65, No. 2: Tonal centers: C-sharp/D-flat and G Op. 65, No. 3: Tonal centers: G and C-sharp/D-flat When mapped out on a musical staff (below), it becomes clear that the tonal centers of each etude (there are always two because of the aforementioned tritone-link) belong to the same diminished seventh chord: G, B-flat, C-sharp, E.

Etude: Op. 65, No. 1

210

Op. 65, No. 2

Op. 65, No 3

Julie Chajes, Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky's Theosophy, Oxford University Press, 2019, 79.

110

As will later be demonstrated, the beginning of the first etude and ending of the last etude are also connected thematically, once again suggesting that Scriabin viewed them as a cycle. Furthermore, the set of Etudes Op. 65 last a mere seven minutes in performance.

It appears the Op. 65 is Scriabin’s only set of etudes with a discernible overarching method of tonal organization between works. His idea of limiting the right hand intervals entirely to 9ths, 7ths and 5ths created the need to make the top two voices the primary governing principle in most of the sonorities. As the analysis in the following chapters will reveal, the bottom note in the right hand is often non-harmonic. Scriabin’s extensive (and unusual) use of non-harmonic notes in the etudes Op. 65 (due to the restrictive techniques used), results in a sound-world distinctly different from virtually all his other late period works.

111

Chapter 6. Possible Sources of Inspiration for Scriabin’s Late-Period Harmonic Innovations

Before a detailed analysis of Scriabin’s Etudes Op. 65, it is important to consider Scriabin’s late period harmonic innovations in the context of earlier musical developments. While Scriabin’s attempt to express mystic ideas inspired a unique new system of harmony, one which ultimately broke away from diatonicism, his system was largely based on techniques which had been explored by the previous generation of Russian composers. As mentioned in the footnote on page 31, Rimsky-Korsakov (18441908) was an influential member of the Belaieff Circle, to which Scriabin also belonged.

While Scriabin never studied officially with Rimsky-Korsakov, he interacted with him during the famous Belaieff Friday-night gatherings, that were regularly attended by Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov, Liadov and other musical notables. 211 Writes Ballard: “Rimsky-Korsakov, [was] a master orchestrator who taught at the nearby St. Petersburg Conservatory, but met Scriabin regularly at the home of his patron and impresario, Belaieff, for weekly musical gatherings nicknamed ‘Quartet Fridays’.” 212 It is possible that Scriabin became familiar with non-diatonic techniques through his contact with Rimsky-Korsakov213, who made much use of them in his music. RimskyKorsakov, in turn, likely learned some of them from his teacher Mily Balakirev (18371910)—the leader of the “Mighty Handful”—a group to which Rimsky-Korsakov belonged.214

211

Maes, History, 172.

Ballard, Companion, 75.

213 Rimsky-Korsakov was one of the first musical advisers for the Edition M.P. Belaieff publishing house (established in 1885).

See Daniel Jaffé, Historical Dictionary of Russian Music. The Scarecrow Press, 2012, 59.

214 See page 30.

212

112

One of the most important musical innovations in Scriabin’s late period works was the replacing the traditional I-to-V progression (and its complement, V-to-I) with bass motion by a tritone, while (most often) retaining an identifiable tonal center. Earlier composers, most notably Franz Liszt, often used the tritone as a building block in extended passages (see Ex. 83 below). For Scriabin, the tritone was connected with mystic concepts of polarity.215 The logic for this is that while keys at a tritone’s distance in traditional harmony are at polar extremes—and hence in an intensely "unsettled" relation to each other, the tritone as actual interval, when thought of separate from its traditional tonal associations, is an interval entirely “at peace” with itself. It is the only interval which, when inverted, maintains its identity (even the octave, inverted, becomes a unison).

In many of Liszt’s compositions, which Scriabin was familiar with even in his student days, the tritone already displays its dramatic power to turn instability into stability:

Ex. 83. Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody No. 9 Pesther Karneval (1847) 216

215

For Liszt, the tritone was often connected with the Mephistopheles (Satan) character, evidenced in many of his programmatic works including Faust Symphony in Three Character Sketches (after Goethe), Four Mephisto Waltzes for piano solo, and Après une lecture du Dante: Fantasia quasi Sonata.

216 Also see Chopin’s Etude in E major, Op. 10, No. 3 (published in 1833) mm. 38-41 for an earlier example of a piano texture which relies heavily on consecutive double-note tritone figurations in both hands.

113

Other progressive composers of the first half of the 19th century had likewise used tritonal relations in surprisingly fresh, startlingly original ways. For example, near the end of the fourth movement (Marche au supplice) of the famous Symphonie Fantastique (1830) by Berlioz, there is a passage boldly alternating D-flat major and G minor chords. Since this movement is in G minor, this is an astonishing use of a “substitute minor dominant” at a distance of a tritone:

Ex. 84. Berlioz. Symphonie Fantastique, IV: Marche au supplice (piano transcription by Franz Liszt, published as S. 470a/2)217

1. Harmonic Progressions Based on the Tritone Relationship On page 6, I discussed the importance of the bell-like sonority produced by the way Scriabin employs bass notes in his early works. In that period, Scriabin (and some contemporaries, such as Rachmaninoff) evoked church bells through the use of extended pedal-tones in the bass. The textural aspect—that is, the low octave bass notes—play a greater role in producing this effect than the harmony.

217

Liszt transcribed the entire Symphonie Fantastique for solo piano in 1833.

114

Anatole Leikin, in The Performing Style of Alexander Scriabin, analyzed a Welte reproducing piano roll recording of the composer playing his own Prelude in C major Op. 11, No. 1.218 Leikin observes: In mm. 19-22 [Op. 11, No 1, see Ex. 85], the octaves in both the [right hand] and [left hand] are struck form the fifth finger outwards, towards the thumb. These consecutively struck octaves... produce a powerful, bell-pealing effect. Since instruments are not allowed inside the Orthodox Church, the church bells are the only instrumental accompaniment to the service. Russian composers frequently incorporated bell-pealing sounds in their music, Scriabin being no exception. 219 In the late period works, including the Etude Op. 65, No. 3, which will be analyzed later in detail, the bell-like effect is created not only by means of pianistic texture but also through the impact of fundamental bass motion by tritone.

Ex. 85. Scriabin in C major Prelude Op. 11, No. 1, mm. 17-20 The most famous instance of the tritone-link progression in 19th century Russian music is the “Coronation Scene” from Modest Mussorgsky's opera Boris Godunov, composed between 1868 and 1873.220 In that scene (Ex. 86 on the next page), the unusual juxtaposition of two chords with root-notes a tritone apart is meant to evoke church bells.

218

Piano rolls generally were considered vastly inferior even to the poorest sounding acoustic cylinder and disc recordings when it came to accurately preserving the intentions of the performer. Modern reproductions of the same piano roll often vary wildly in tempo and in other crucial details, as they are very much dependent on the quality and regulation of the piano used for playback. However, in the case of pianists who otherwise left no surviving acoustic cylinder or disc recordings, they may nevertheless provide valuable insight into their style of playing.

219 Leikin, Style, 53.

220 Cooper, Dictionary, 72.

115

The scene itself is set outside the Kremlin, and marks the ascension of Boris to the Tsardom. Writes Michael Russ: In Russian [Orthodox Church] bell ringing, layers of sound are superimposed on one another such that the high bells sound rapidly and the deeper ones more slowly [perhaps an inspiration for Scriabin’s extensive use of cross rhythm] each layer containing a repeated dyad. 221 Note that Mussorgsky is using apparent major-minor 7 th —that is, chords of a traditionally "dominant" nature—which he links at the distance of a tritone. Scriabin takes the dramatic tonal implications of this progression much further in his late piano works.

Ex. 86. Mussorgsky. Boris Godunov “Coronation Scene”, piano reduction The alternating seventh chords in this progression share two common-tones: G-flat/F-sharp and C. That aural link gives the progression validity in the ears of the listener. In this regard, it is perhaps slightly less daring than the Berlioz example cited earlier, as the two chords which Berlioz employs share no tones at all. 222

221

Michael Russ, Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition. Cambridge University Press, 1992, 56.

Mussorgsky undoubtedly knew the Symphonie Fantastique. Berlioz visited Russia in 1847 and 1867 and made a lasting impact on the musical culture there. See José Antonio Bowen, The Cambridge Art to Conducting, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 191.

222

116

Mussorgsky's chords are also linked by stepwise chromatic voice-leading. After the registral effects are removed, the A-flat moves up to A-natural and the E-flat moves down to a D, as is evident in the reduction below:

Scriabin’s new system of harmony largely arises from the relationship between those two chords. The A-flat based seventh chord sonority (see reduction above) can be filled in the with acoustic scale. Likewise, all the pitches in the chord a tritone away (seventh chord with D as the root) belong to the octatonic scale collection built up from the same starting notes as the acoustic scale (spelled enharmonically as G-sharp in the example below, for easier comparison):

These are the two principal collections of pitch relations which Scriabin will use to build the harmonies of his late period compositions. Precedents for Scriabin’s use of modes will be discussed in detail later on in this chapter.

Interestingly, Richard Taruskin found a similar progression by tritone in the opera Rogneda (Ex. 87 on the following page), composed in 1865 by Alexander Serov (18201871).223

223

Composed three years before Mussorgsky (1839-1881) started work on Boris Godunov.

117

Ex. 87. Royal Hunt in Act 3 of Serov’s Opera Rogneda (1865)224 Mily Balakirev also used a tritone based progression in his famous Islamey Op. 18, which was composed in 1869. This is the work Scriabin practiced during that fateful summer of 1891 (along with the Liszt Réminiscences de Don Juan) with such driving intensity that it resulted in hand injury. As in the Mussorgsky example, the roots of the two main chords within the figuration are a tritone apart (the root notes are B and F in the example below):

Ex. 88. Balakirev Islamey: An Oriental Fantasy, Op. 18 (1869) Taruskin has noted likewise tritone based motion in Rimsky-Korsakov’s Opera Sadko, composed in 1896 (See Ex. 89). 225 Rimsky-Korsakov fills in that motion—which in this case is melodic rather than harmonic since a single chord sustains the entire passage—with an octatonic scale. This scale is another important element of Scriabin’s late period works (see example 89 on the following page).

224 225

Richard Taruskin, Mussorgsky: Eight Essays and an Epilogue, Princeton University Press, 1997, 107.

Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions Vol. 1, University of California Press, 2016, 286.

118

Ex. 89. Rimsky-Korsakov’s Opera Sadko, Act I, Scene 2.

Returning to Franz Liszt: one of the earliest instances of a tritone-based progression occurs in his Malédiction S. 121 for piano and string orchestra, composed around 1833 (see Ex. 90).226 However, the composers of the Mighty Handful (who were devoted followers of Liszt)227 could not have known this work as it was never performed publicly in the composer’s lifetime, and remained unpublished until 1914. 228

Ex. 90. Liszt Malédiction S. 121, composed c. 1833 Nevertheless, Jonathan Kregor writes in his book Liszt as a Transcriber: “Balakirev seems to have been the real force behind the upkeep of Liszt's warm Russian reception in the second half of the century, encouraging Tchaikovsky to model works on Liszt's symphonic compositions.”229

226

Liszt transcribed the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique 1833, it most likely inspired the passage in Liszt’s Malédiction.

227 Mily Balakirev presented salon-style evenings which regularly featured Liszt's piano music and edited several volumes of Liszt's compositions. See Jonathan Kregor, Liszt as Transcriber, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 207.

228 Ben Arnold, The Liszt Companion, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, 287.

229 Kregor, Liszt, 207.

119

In keeping with this, Richard Taruskin observed a clear instance of a tritone-based relationship in Liszt's Symphonic Poem Orpheus S. 98 (Ex. 91), which was composed in 1853-1854.230

Ex. 91. Liszt Orpheus S. 98 (1853-1854)

Thus, one of the most important aspects of Scriabin’s late style—the tritone motion came to replace the “perfect fifth” relationship in his music—evolving out of innovations which can be traced back to Berlioz and Liszt.

230

Taruskin, Stravinsky, 283.

120

2. The Use of Non-Diatonic Scales

On page 116, I noted the significance of the tritone relationship in Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov, and illustrated that these chords could be considered from a scalar perspective: that is, as selected aspects of the acoustic and octatonic scales. As was indicated before, Scriabin used these two scales to generate his harmonies in the late period. Interestingly, Rimsky-Korsakov famously employed—in a related manner—both the whole-tone and acoustic scales in his compositions. Writes Taruskin: “There is a telling sketch for The Tale of Tsar Saltan, made in 1899 (Ex. 92) that shows the two forms of the scale [built] from the same pitch”. 231

Ex. 92. Rimsky-Korsakov. Sketch for The Tale of Tsar Saltan (1899) 232

Note that in this example, Rimsky-Korsakov is exploring two possible methods of generating the scale from the same central pitch: E. It ought to be mentioned that it was undoubtedly Glinka’s earlier use of the whole-tone scale in works such as the 1842 opera Ruslan and Lyudmila which first drew Rimsky-Korsakov’s attention to the striking potential of that scale to evoke the sense of reality as “fantastical”.

231 232

Taruskin, Stravinsky, 88.

Ibid., 88.

121

Taruskin also found that Rimsky-Korsakov often employs this double sense of tonal structure—the octatonic and whole-tone collections—in close temporal proximity.

Taruskin’s analysis of a passage in Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade (1888) reveals that the composer shifted between the whole-tone scale and the octatonic scale built up from the same note, linking them through five common-tones: B, C-sharp, E-sharp, F and G (Ex. 93). The second transposition of the octatonic scale in that example likewise shares the pitches D-sharp/E-flat, F, A and B with the whole-tone scale.

Ex. 93. Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherazade (1888)

The Scheherazade example is particularly significant because it reveals that Scriabin’s choice to employ a combination of acoustic and octatonic modes in his late compositions is a development of the very technique used by Rimsky-Korsakov as early as 1888. Scriabin went quite a bit further when he used these modes to create “Mystic

122

Chord” vertical sonorities, yet he almost certainly learned the technique of shifting between two non-diatonic modes built over the same bass note, through his awareness of Rimsky-Korsakov’s music. No composer was more prominent in the world of Russian music than Rimsky-Korsakov during Scriabin’s formative years of conservatory education, with the sole possible exception of Tchaikovsky. (Scriabin graduated Moscow Conservatory in 1892.)

Returning to the strictly theoretical aspect of the acoustic scale as it was employed by Scriabin, it most certainly can be understood as a combination of whole tone and octatonic elements. The first four notes outline a whole-tone scale, and the last 4 notes outline an octatonic scale, with F-sharp and C being the common tones:

Thus, Scriabin’s late-period harmonic system was clearly a further exploration of techniques found earlier in Russian music. However, as the analysis of the 3 Etudes Op. 65 in the next chapter will reveal—Scriabin used those elements in a new manner— creating a self-standing and complete system of harmony which broke away from diatonicism entirely while retaining the possibility of establishing tonal centers (and maintaining hierarchical relationships between them).

123

Chapter 7. The 3 Etudes Op. 65: An Overview

The Etude Op. 65, No. 1 consists entirely of major ninths in the right hand.

Scriabin treats the major ninths as the melody, while most of the harmonies underneath are tailored for the right hand double note sonorities.

Ex. 94. Scriabin Etude Op. 65, No. 1

This sort of self-imposed intervallic restriction for the duration of an entire work makes the Op. 65 unique in Scriabin’s creative output. As mentioned earlier, this creates an abundance of non-harmonic notes which are generated by the lower pitch (in the right hand). Note that the chromatic line in the right hand is harmonized with descending thirds in the bass line of the left hand, outlining an octatonic based progression. 233

233

Curiously, Ferruccio Busoni (1866-1924), who taught at the Moscow Conservatory from 1890 through 1891, advocated practicing octave passages as legato major ninths. Was Scriabin aware of this suggestion? Busoni certainly was familiar with Scriabin’s music, and studied some of the Etudes Op. 8, although he never performed them publicly. See Della Couling, Ferruccio Busoni: "A Musical Ishmael", Scarecrow Press, 2005, 155.

124

A closer examination reveals that all the left hand harmonies in the main thematic element of this etude (the ascending chromatic scale in ninths) rely entirely on the octatonic collection (see Ex. 95).

Ex. 95. The octatonic scales which generate the left hand harmony over each bass note (E, C-sharp, A-sharp and G). These scales use the same eight pitches.

The spacing and exact intervallic structure of each of the chords is unique, yet they are all based on the exact same octatonic collection. Note that bassline outlines a diminished chord E, C-sharp, A-sharp and G. (The octatonic scale can also be understood as two interlocking seventh chords, a semitone apart, thus, the bassline expresses the octatonic collection on different structural level.)

Examining the harmony on the downbeat in measure 1, one will find this initial sonority, the “key” of the piece:

The bottom G-flat in the right hand of this chord is the only note that does not belong to the octatonic scale built from E. This is a result of Scriabin’s self-imposed restriction on the right hand interval employed throughout this work.

125

However, that G-flat (spelled as F-sharp below for easier reading) belongs to the acoustic scale collection from E:

The G-flat also suggests a whole-tone pitch collection. Curiously, all five pitches of the chord in measure 1 belong to a whole-tone collection. E, G-flat, A-flat, B-flat, (C), D. This could be understood as a development of techniques used by Rimsky-Korsakov.

Due to the complex nature of the sonorities, excessive octave doublings within the textures (aside from the bass) will sound noticeably out of place. (See footnote page 66 for Samuil Feinberg’s observations on the lack of extended octave doubling in Scriabin’s piano music.) While the cross-rhythm is still prominent, when it is executed in tempo, the effect is that of a written-out arpeggiation, and the overall texture acquires a greater clarity. Despite the advances in the tonal language, there is a far greater restriction with regard to the types of chord constructions used (Ex. 96).

Left Hand: m. 3

m. 7

m. 15

m. 19

Ex. 96. Op. 65, No. 1. Note the consistency in the type of left hand sonorities used.

They have acquired a motivic quality

126

The vast range of the left hand writing is a trait which remained unchanged from Scriabin’s early period and middle period works. In the contrasting “B section” of this etude, marked meno vivo (starting in m. 23), one will notice that the left hand often presents two different voices: the main melodic voice in its own register and the rhythmically displaced accompaniment below it. Franz Liszt often used a similar texture in many of his works (Ex. 97).

Ex. 97. Liszt Mephisto Waltz No. 1 mm. 551-555,

Scriabin Op. 65, No. 1 mm. 27-28

The ending of the Etude Op. 65, No. 1 contains the pitches found in the opening chord, namely B-flat, A-flat, D, and G-flat. However, as the lowest bass note (the B-flat) is now a tritone away, the E natural “tonal center” of the work’s initial harmony is missing entirely. The only new pitch—the right hand C—is not harmonic (it belongs to the acoustic collection from B-flat). Scriabin has effectively shifted the tonal center from E to B-flat, yet those notes are nevertheless closely linked by the four common tones mentioned earlier: B-flat, A-flat, D, and G-flat (see Ex. 98 on the following page).

It is clear that Scriabin was fully aware of the function of each note within the texture. His treatment of the tritone in the context of this etude strongly suggests that he linked it to the mystic idea of “Unity out of Multiplicity”.

127

Ex. 98. The first chord of the Op. 65 No. 1 uses the same pitches as the ending (except E) As the analysis of this etude revealed, Scriabin often creates the illusion of motion while he is fact using the same pitch-collection. Furthermore, Scriabin demonstrates that while a tonal center can be firmly established, it is often complemented by its “inversion” a tritone away. The underlying sonority exploits the unusual properties of the French augmented 6th chord (this will be observed in the Etude Op. 65, No. 3). Scriabin realized that the French augmented 6th chord, when inverted, generates the same structure from a fundamental bass note a tritone away. Moving any French augmented 6th chord down a tritone creates both a transposition and an inversion. When sounding simultaneously, two major-minor seventh chords a tritone apart also generate a French augmented 6 th chord.

This interplay (using the exact pitches below) will be explored in Scriabin’s Etude Op. 65, No. 3:

Thus, the “tritone-link”—used extensively by Scriabin in his late works—is based on the unusual properties of the French augmented 6th chord and is in fact an outgrowth of traditional tonality.

128

1. Etude Op. 65, No. 2 The right hand of Scriabin’s Etude Op. 65, No. 2 is composed entirely of major sevenths. Scriabin does not establish the tonal center right away. Note that he settles on the C-sharp bass only by measure 7, and skillfully uses the tritone motion from G to C-sharp (in place of a traditional V-I cadence) to establish the tonal area (Ex. 99). The repetition of that phrase also helps to establish the tonal center of C-sharp (which is also confirmed at the end of the work, see Ex. 101 on the following page). The beginning of this etude is clearly linked with the ending of the previous one (see Ex. 100).

Ex. 99. Op. 65, No. 2, mm. 6-9

Ex. 100. The ending of Op. 65, No. 1

The beginning of Op. 65, No. 2

129

Note that the pitches A-flat and G-flat at the end of the Op. 65 No. 1 are enharmonically the same as the F-sharp and G-sharp starting notes in the Etude Op. 65, No. 2 (left hand), in that same register. Scriabin likely wanted to link the set of etudes and for that reason, chose to delay the arrival of the C-sharp/D-flat tonal center of the Etude Op. 65, No. 2.

Ex. 101. The C-sharp/D-flat tonal center confirmed at the end of the Op. 65/2.

The modes used for the first eight measures of this etude—the octatonic scale combined with some foreign pitches belonging to the acoustic scale—all fit within the “shell” of the major seventh, which is the “fixed” interval in the right hand, with no exceptions.

In measure 6, the A-natural in the left hand belongs to the acoustic scale built from G and not D-flat/C-sharp tonal center. However, Scriabin easily links those sonorities by moving the bass a tritone away. The tritone-link often makes the main fundamental bass note inseparable from its doppelgänger a tritone away. Once again, note how Scriabin establishes the tonal center through immediate repetition.

130

The restriction of melodic motion (and the intervals in the right hand) is a compositional device which is unique to these Etudes Op. 65. In addition, Scriabin’s treatment of the left-hand material as an accompaniment to the right hand major sevenths makes the harmony closely connected to the melody, to an extent not seen in his earlier works. This brings to mind Scriabin’s statement mentioned earlier: “Now in my works, the synthesis starts. For me there is no difference between melody and harmony, they are and the same. This principle is strictly realized in my Prometheus, Op. 60.”234 Scriabin creates cadences by incorporating one pitch (the A-natural) from the acoustic scale in the otherwise fully octatonic collection. The acoustic mode (over G) is suggested by the presence of the A-natural, yet the bass moves down a tritone to C-sharp/D-flat, establishing it as main tonal area. It is important to note that while there are always two interchangeable tonal centers—Scriabin nevertheless emphasizes the Csharp as the main one—through the octave doubling and ensuring that it is the lowest pitch in that section. The subtlety, even irony here, is that the note belonging to the acoustic scale a tritone away (A-natural) is used to establish the tonal center (C-sharp).

In measures 26-29, Scriabin follows the exact same procedure as in the analogous section in measures 6-9, and establishes G as the tonal center by using the “foreign” note E-flat, which belongs to the acoustic scale built from D-flat. Scriabin likely wanted to have the D-flat as the lowest note in the texture by leaping up to the G instead of down, as he did in measures 6-9 (see Ex. 102 on the next page).

234

Sabaneyev, Reminiscences, 47.

131 Op. 65, No. 2, mm. 26-29

Op. 65, No. 2, mm. 6-9

Ex. 102. mm. 26-29 are analogous to mm. 6-9, despite the small differences in the registration

This brings to mind Scriabin’s goal of using the tritone relationship in place of the dominant-tonic relationship. Looking at key structural areas of this etude, one can observe that he is doing precisely that. There are always two valid tonal centers, and Scriabin can easily shift between them by adding a bass note a tritone away to the initial sonority, just as he does in mm. 6-9 and 26-29. 235 Scriabin uses this as a compositional device to create tonal ambiguity but also to establish a “key area” (just as a V-I cadence would). The octave doubling in the middle register of the piano (mm. 6-9 and 26-29) is quite rare for Scriabin’s late period piano works.

235

However, the fact that the low D-flat/C-sharp is the lowest note in the work (and is further emphasized by octave doublings) leaves no question that it is the true tonal center of this etude.

132

Clearly, Scriabin used the uncharacteristic doubling to emphasize the most important notes within the texture, helping to establish the tonal centers of D-flat/C-sharp and G. On page 129, I illustrated how in mm. 6-8 the “foreign” pitch A—which belonged to the acoustic scale from G—was crucial in establishing the tonal center of D-flat.

Traditional tonality uses an asymmetrical mode (diatonic), so the diatonic major (and minor) scales may be easily perceived by the listener in 12 distinct tonal areas. However, due to the symmetry of the octatonic scale, there can only be three unique levels of transposition, or “keys”. In this particular etude, Scriabin uses the A-natural belonging to the acoustic scale to establish the tonal center. The asymmetrical properties of the acoustic scale allow it to have 12 different levels of transposition with unique pitch-class sets. Thus, the acoustic scale can establish unique “tonal areas”, much like the diatonic scale, while the octatonic scale by itself cannot create a firm perception of a tonal center.

I believe it is for exactly that reason that Scriabin uses the one foreign note from the acoustic scale in key structural areas of the work. Scriabin realized that because the acoustic and octatonic scales share six pitches—G, B, C-sharp, D, E and F in this particular etude—they can be used interchangeably over the same root:

Scriabin expresses the aforementioned mystic idea of duality in his music by using the tritone. With his innovative use of the octatonic mode, the same collection of pitches can be validly supported (or “harmonized”) by two bass notes a tritone apart.

133

In the ending of the Etude Op. 65, No. 2 (Ex. 103), the acoustic scale element is entirely absent. Due to the duality of key, it would have been the E-flat belonging to the D-flat acoustic collection, or the A-natural belonging to the G acoustic collection. Both the G and D-flat are used interchangeably before settling down on the D-flat (the lowest note of the piece). Only the octatonic mode is used in the final measures. The acoustic scale is no-longer needed because the tonal area had already been firmly established.

Scriabin Op. 65, No. 2, ending. Scriabin once again uses both G and D-flat in a tritone-linked relationship which functions more like an inversion due to the shared pitch-class set

Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3, beginning

Ex. 103 Once again, Scriabin links the end of the Op. 65, No. 2 with the beginning of the Op. 65, No. 3 with common tones (in the same register), just as he did with Etudes No. 1 and No. 2 in the cycle (see Ex. 100 on Pg. 128). The B-flat in the right hand is also a common tone. The clear link between all three etudes suggests that the 3 Etudes Op. 65 were in fact envisioned as a cycle, which was not the case for the Op. 8 and Op. 42 sets of etudes.

134

2. The Form of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 Section A: Vivace. Tonal center: G/D-flat (mm. 1-16) 16 measures, 2 phrases 8 bars each Section B: Impérieux. Tonal Center: C-sharp/G (mm. 17-38) 22 measures (**2 measures missing due to incomplete sequence) Section B-1: Impérieux. Transposed to F-sharp/C (mm. 39-62) 24 measures, with interpolated elements from the A section.

Section A: Prestissimo. G/D-flat (mm. 63-78) 16 measures. Modified return of the Vivace material.

Section B: Meno Vivo. C-sharp/G (mm. 79-102) 24 measures. Return of the Imperieux plus a coda Note that there are two perceived tonal centers in this work. Scriabin highlights the G by starting and ending both iterations of “Section A” with the G in the bass, which establishes it as the tonal center. However, the etude ends, unexpectedly, with a passage which emphasizes the C-sharp bass. illustrated in the Ex. 104 below.

Ex. 104. The first beginning, and the last five measures of the work

135

The incomplete phrase in mm. 37-38 (two measures long) is an irregularity which results in the whole section being 22-measures in length. As all the other sections were 16 or 24 measure sections—which allowed for neat 4 and 8-bar phrases—the incomplete phrase is quite jarring. Scriabin emphasizes it further by placing it right before the shift in the texture (and tempo) in m. 39, and adds the “poco accelerando” remark to sharpen the contrast between the sections (see Ex. 105 below).

Ex. 105. Op. 65, No. 3 mm. 37-40. Note the irregular two-bar phrase in mm. 37-38

Scriabin uses a similar effect before the closing passage of the work, but adds two measures of rests after the phrase breaks off unexpectedly, preserving the structure fourbar phrase structure (Ex. 106).

Ex. 106. Op. 65, No. 3. The incomplete two-bar phrase before the ending passage of the work (12 measures before the end)

136

The effect is made more dramatic with the use of rests (Ex. 106). The listener has been conditioned to hear a complete four-bar phrase, analogous to the previous one in mm. 87-90 (see Ex. 107).

Ex. 107. Op. 65, No. 3, mm. 87-90

Aside from that subtle irregularity of phrase structure, the rest of the etude is mostly symmetrical in design. Note that Section A (G/D-flat tonal center) and Section B (C-sharp/G tonal center) are inversions of one another. The central F-sharp/C (labeled section B-1) in the chart on page 134 is in fact a half-step away from the main tonal area.

However, Scriabin skillfully avoids any implication of the leading tone, as the harmonic analysis will reveal in the next section of this chapter.

137

3. Harmonic Analysis of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 Examining the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 (which is a study in playing right hand double notes), one can notice that the slower-moving harmonic motion here is governed by the limited number of possible sonorities which can be generated while the right hand throughout this etude is restricted to perfect fifths. The harmony can easily be extracted from the figuration. There is a striking lack of non-harmonic notes as the structure — G-F-E-A-B — is kept consistent throughout. 236 This sonority is transposed and sequenced over the ascending bass notes G, A, B in measures 1-8 (see reduction in Ex. 108 below) and that whole section is transposed in the next eight-measure phrase (with the main bass notes E-flat, F, G) which cycles back to the initial sonority.

Ex. 108. Harmonic reduction of mm. 1-8 (repetitions eliminated for clarity) G is established as the tonal center at the end of that section. Note the presence of the pitch A in the right hand, belonging to the acoustic mode built from G (Ex. 109).

Ex. 109. Op. 65, No. 3, mm. 15-16 236

This chord could be understood as a non-functional dominant seventh chord G-B-F with an added sixth (E) and ninth (A). Dominant chords with added dissonances are abundant in the romantic masterworks of Chopin, Schumann, Liszt and many others. As mentioned previously, Scriabin’s use of this sonority, however, removes all implication of a dominant (V) function.

138

In mm. 5-8, Scriabin introduces one new pitch in the left hand: the E-sharp, and makes it prominent with a new rhythmical figuration in m. 8 (left hand, see Ex. 110).

Ex. 110. Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3, mm. 7-9 In the reduction of the harmony which the added E-sharp creates (Ex. 111 below), the right hand is also shown closed position for easier comparison to the beginning of the work:

Ex. 111. Op. 65, No. 3, reduction of m. 8 (closed position on the right) This new chord serves as a link to the next eight-measure phrase, which is transposition of the first phrase to E-flat. The E-sharp and B in the left hand of m. 8 expand out by a whole tone, creating the connection between the phrases (see Ex. 110 above). Note that in the transposed second phrase, m. 16 is not analogous to m. 8 of the previous phrase, because the next Impérieux section (starting in m. 17) is in fact using the same pitches as mm. 1-16, only with an inverted bass line. Therefore, additional “foreign” pitches are not needed to accomplish that transition.

139

The prominent tritone featured in the B, E-sharp, A chord in the left hand (m. 8) was actually hinted at in the first seven measures of the piece, if one (wisely) takes pedaling into account when examining the harmony.237 Playing the first measure on one pedal produces a G, D-flat, F, B chord in the left hand. This is in fact that very same harmonic structure which was made prominent by the new rhythmic figuration in m. 8.

Scriabin clearly expresses what has only been hinted at in the previous measures through the blending of two dominant chords, a tritone apart:

This is important, as it is clear that Scriabin treats the tritone in m. 8 (and elsewhere) as a free “added note”, as one might use the fifth scale degree in a diatonic mode. This is a subtle way in which Scriabin uses the tritone relationship in place of the traditional I-V motion in his late works. If one takes all the notes present in m. 1 and stacks them in fourths, a seven-note chord will be produced. (There is also an E-flat present, but not shown in the reduction because it is a non-harmonic note, functioning as the lower neighbor to the E.) This is most likely how Scriabin built up the main harmony of the piece (see Ex. 112 on the following page).

237

The prolongation (and blending) of notes using the pedal is integral to Scriabin’s piano writing. Scriabin does not indicate any piano markings but even the most ascetic tone-colorist would perform at least the first measure of the piece without changing the pedal (contemporary accounts of Scriabin’s performances noted his incredible tonal palette at the keyboard and inventive use of pedal-blurring effects).

140

Ex. 112. Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3. The pitches in m. 1 (except E-flat) neatly fit into a structure stacked by fourths, similar to the Prometheus chord One should note that the “tritone link” is also an important motivic element in the work. It connects the Molto vivace section (“Section A”, mm. 1-16) to the Impérieux (“Section B” starting in m. 17), as the bass line in mm. 1-2: G, D-flat, G, becomes C-sharp, G, C-sharp, in mm. 17-19. These are the same pitches, spelled enharmonically and inverted. The continuous triplet rhythm established by the right hand in the first section is now present in the left hand figuration starting from m. 17, which also helps to link the two sections (Ex. 113).

Ex. 113. Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3, mm 1-2 and mm. 17-19.

The Impérieux section (from m. 17) is the first time that a recognizably melodic element (in the right hand) is introduced in the piece. 238 Scriabin emphasizes the contrast in texture and dynamics with a slower tempo marking (Ex. 114).

238

However, the melody in this etude is rather minimalist.

141

Ex. 114. Op. 65, No. 3. Measures 17-20, right hand melody.

In a conversation with me, Dr. Edward Green (the advisor of this thesis), noted that the melody seems to be an allusion to La Marseillaise (below), which may connect with Scriabin’s use of the Impérieux marking.239

The markings Impérieux and Imperioso (which may be translated as “magistral”, “authoritative” and even “pompous”) are found in several other Scriabin works in addition to the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 (see Ex. 115). Ballard writes “Scriabin is fond of kingly, assertive gestures marked Imperioso or Impérieux. These brands of royalty are self-important to the extent that they can disrupt metric flow.” 240

239

Tchaikovsky’s famous 1812 Solemn Overture, composed in 1880 (referencing the successful Russian defense against Napoleon’s army in 1812) also quotes La Marseillaise.

240 Ballard, Companion, 312.

142 Sonata No. 5, Op. 53 (1907):

Sonata No. 7, Op. 64 (1911-1912), written at the same time as the 3 Etudes Op. 65:

Ex. 115. Other instances of the Impérieux and Imperioso marking in Scriabin works.

The Scriabin Etude Op. 65, No. 3 reveals an increasingly minimalist approach to harmony and texture. While the sonorities have become more dissonant, there is less contrapuntal activity and the music strikingly less “melodic”.

Returning to the Impérieux (m. 17), note that all of the “added note dissonances” are in the right hand in this section, above the alternating left hand seventh chords a tritone apart.

Ex. 116. A reduction of mm. 17-22.

143

As observed in the previous two etudes in this set, the top note of the right hand is treated as a melody, with the lower note in the right hand (along with the left hand harmonies) tailored to it. The lower notes in the right hand inevitably tend to create an abundance of non-harmonic notes because the right hand is restricted to playing perfect fifths in this etude, with no exceptions.

This explains why the E-flat in the right hand in the first measure of the piece does not belong to any mode over the bass G. The E-flat would have belonged to the acoustic scale mode above the preceding C-sharp/D-flat bass, which also confirms how Scriabin used both the acoustic and octatonic scale interchangeably to add seemingly foreign harmonic notes. In m. 1, the E-flat is in a rhythmically weak position and is best understood as being “non-harmonic”, precisely because of Scriabin’s self-imposed restriction of the fifth. Scriabin must have been aware of it, as he also uses the “nonharmonic” E-flat in a similar fashion in the Impérieux section (see Ex. 117). This is yet another connection between the two seemingly contrasting sections, relating to Scriabin’s ideas of Unity and Multiplicity.

Ex. 117. Op. 65, No. 1: m. 1

and

mm. 17-18.

144

There are several other things to consider. Late Scriabin’s chord “spellings” are often made as easy to read as possible and avoid extra accidentals in the notation. This is noticeable when one examines the way Scriabin notates (or “spells”) many of the crossrelations in this etude. For instance, the left hand B-natural in the Impérieux (m. 17, see Ex. 117 on the previous page) is first notated as a B-natural and then as a C-flat in m. 18, in order to prevent confusion with the prominent B-flat in the right hand in that measure.

The harmonic function of that pitch in that context, however, supports the B-natural spelling (a major third above the G bass would be spelled “correctly” as a B than as C-flat in that instance).

In m. 17, the C-sharp, F, B sonority in the left hand is in fact the same pitches which are spelled D-flat, F, C-flat in the second figuration of measure 1, and could have been spelled the same way in measure 17. However, that would have made it necessary for Scriabin to add the natural symbol to the D in the right hand of that measure.

The harmonic function of each note was something that Scriabin was acutely aware of. In many of the Etudes Op. 8, Scriabin resorts to using double-sharps quite often to notate the sonorities with the “correct” harmonic function for every note. 241 The previous generation of composers who had influenced Scriabin in his late period harmonic innovations were not known for using enharmonic spellings in their notation (see Ex. 118 on the next page). However, the presence of cross-relations throughout the Op. 65, No. 3 created the need to notate some of the pitches enharmonically (despite their actual harmonic function) in order to preserve a clear, elegant and readable notation.

241

Especially Etudes Op. 8 Nos: 1 in C-sharp major, 9 in G-sharp minor and 12 in D-sharp minor.

145

Balakirev Islamey (1869). The B minor chords are “spelled” correctly within the D-flat major key signature:

Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition (1874): The Great Gate of Kiev

Ex. 118. The composers of the Mighty Handful tended to avoid “simplified” enharmonic spellings when notating remote key-areas.

In the Impérieux section of this etude (starting in m. 17), the harmony is static from measure 17 through 30 until the bass note changes to an E in measure 31. Note that due to the “tritone link” between the bass notes C-sharp and G in this section, these bass notes are essentially interchangeable. The harmony produced is identical to the first Vivace section (mm. 1-16), only inverted (see Ex. 119 on the next page). Once again, it connects to Scriabin’s ideas about Unity and Multiplicity. Significantly, it also reveals that Scriabin’s tritone-link is based on the properties of the French augmented sixth chord, as discussed previously (see page 127).

146 Vivace section mm. 1-2:

Imperieux section: mm. 17-19:

Ex. 119. The main harmonies of the Vivace and Impérieux sections use the same pitches, and intervallic structure, this is possible due to the unusual properties of the French Augmented 6th chord, as discussed earlier.

Measures 29-32 are important to examine in order to understand how transitions between tonal areas are accomplished in this late-period work (Ex. 120). While there is no defined “key” (in the diatonic sense) in late Scriabin, the bass-line nevertheless establishes some very specific tonal centers. As mentioned previously, this etude is based around the seventh chord built from two pitches linked by tritone, namely G and C-sharp.

Ex. 120. Op. 65, No. 3, mm. 29-32. Transitioning to a bass note not heard previously As made clear in the reduction of mm. 29-32 (see Ex. 121 on the following page), the progression is based on a voice exchange: the bass G natural is picked up by the top voice in the next measure. Note the cross-relation to the G-sharp in the left hand. Scriabin once again uses the tritone link between seventh chords freely. While the bass note changes, it is not treated as a new harmonic note.

147

The underlying bass motion is best understood as an ascent by minor third from D-flat/C-sharp to E. One can often find this kind of octatonic-based progression in Scriabin’s late works. 242 In addition, the bottom notes in the right hand double-note figuration in each measure (Ex. 121) outline a chromatic scale—D, E-flat, E-natural, F— in that register, which helps to link the progression contrapuntally.

Ex. 121. Op. 65, No. 3, mm. 29-32, reduction

Despite (or in addition to) the innovative approach to harmony, Scriabin writes in short, clear eight measure phrases, just as in his early and middle period etudes. The phrase structure in the first section (mm. 1-16) is very clear, with each of the two phrases being eight measures long. The sparseness of pianistic texture is apparent in this work, and Scriabin’s restrictive use of intervals certainly contributes to it.

Examining the Impérieux section (from mm. 17) one can discern that it is structured in four-measure phrases, heard in sets of two: mm. 17-20 and 21-24 plus 25-28 and 29-32. Starting from mm. 33 however, the phrases shortened to two-measures in length, as Scriabin starts interpolating material from the first Vivace section (mm. 1-16, see Ex. 122 on the next page).

242

The bass-line of progressions by minor third (outlining a diminished chord) can be filled in with an octatonic scale. This can be found in works of Liszt, Rimsky-Korsakov and other composers who influenced Scriabin.

148

Ex. 122. Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3, mm. 33-40. Phrases are now two measures long, as Scriabin starts interpolating material from the Vivace in mm. 1-16 This may also connect with Scriabin’s ideas of polarity, as he is now rapidly switching between the two contrasting textures based on the Vivace and the Impérieux material.243 Note that Scriabin now uses a whole-tone element in the material derived from the Vivace, instead of the chromatic element heard in m. 1 (see Ex. 123). The whole-tone element generates a harmony which was not heard previously in the piece. m. 1:

mm. 33-34:

Ex. 123. Op 65, No. 3, m. 1 compared with the modified material in m. 33

243

It is similar to the procedures typically used in a development section of a traditional sonata form.

149 The initial harmony in m. 1:

m. 33:

m. 33 transposed to the initial tonal area for easier comparison:

Ex. 124. Op. 65, No. 3. The m. 1 harmony compared with the modified m. 33 material.

It is easier to understand the harmony in m. 33 when it is transposed to the G/D-flat tonal area of m. 1 (the tonal center or “tonic” of the piece). Examining the transposed version of m. 33 (on the right of Ex. 124), the E-flat and A-flat in that transposition now produce a new harmony of four note, stacked in fourths: F, B-flat, E-flat and A-flat, which is related to the initial harmony of the work. Thus, the harmony in mm. 33 is derived from the opening harmony, transposed down a minor third (from G/D-flat to the tonal center of E/B-flat).

Measures 35-36 are a fragmented repeat of the phrase in mm. 29-32, and mm. 3738 serve as a transition from the bass E to a new F-sharp bass note in m. 39, a progression which moves by ascending whole-step (E/B-flat—F-sharp/C), as illustrated in Ex. 125.

Note that mm. 37-38 is the material from mm. 3-4, transposed down a minor third. 244 This is yet another example of the overarching integration of material in this work, to an extent not found in the earlier etudes.

244

The phrase in mm. 37-38 is a two-measure fragment derived from the longer phrase in mm. 3-6.

150

Ex. 125. mm. 37-39, note the underlying bass motion by whole step, E—F-sharp.

Scriabin pairs each bass note with its “inversion” a tritone away.

The subito meno vivo section in m. 39 arrives unexpectedly due to an accelerando in the previous measure (see Ex. 125). In addition, the transition in measures 33-38 was only six measures long, with three fragmented phrases (organized as 2+2+2), which contrasts the symmetrical four-bar phrasing heard previously. The molto vivace section in mm. 1-16 had was grouped into two phrases, each eight measures long. Aside from the anomaly in m. 39, the Imperieux section was mostly divided into four-measure phrases.

However, the three fragmented phrases in mm. 33-38 were two measures each, heard as a total of six measures and not the expected eight measures.

The section marked subito meno vivo (m. 39, see Ex. 126) is in fact the Imperieux material heard previously, transposed up a perfect fourth, from C-sharp/G to F-sharp/C.

mm. 17-18

mm. 39-40

Ex. 126. Scriabin Op. 65 No. 3. The section starting in m. 39 is a transposition of the Impérieux in m. 17

151

This section starting from m. 39 (identified as “B-1” in the analysis of the form on pg. 134) is analogous to the second and not the first phrase of the Impérieux heard earlier.245 This entire section, which features interpolations from the “Section A” Vivace material, lasts a total of 24 measures (this was the expected length of the Section B Impérieux in mm. 17-38, which was only 22 measures long due to the incomplete phrase discussed earlier).

Examining the overall structure and tonal scheme again (shown below, identical to pg. 134), it is possible to understand this entire subito meno vivo section transposed to F#/C (labeled B-1) as being in the structural spot of a development section within a sonata form.

Structure and Tonal Scheme of Scriabin’s Etude Op. 65, No. 3: Section A:

Vivace.

Tonal center: G/D-flat (mm. 1-16)

16 measures total, 2 phrases 8 bars each

Section B:

Impérieux.

Tonal Center: C-sharp/G (mm 17-38)

22 measures (**2 measures missing due to incomplete sequence)

Section B-1: Subito meno vivo. F-sharp/C (mm. 39-62) 24 measures, with interpolated elements from the A section

This is a transposition of Impérieux to F-sharp/C Section A:

Prestissimo.

G/D-flat (mm. 63-78)

16 measures. Modified return of the Vivace material

Section B:

Meno Vivo.

C-sharp/G (mm. 79-102)

24 measures. Return of the Imperieux plus a coda

The transposed statement of the Impérieux material (section B-1) is likely placed there to provide a fresh new tonal area in work otherwise centered around two main bass notes, namely: G and C-sharp/D-flat.

245

It is essentially a transposition of the phrase which started in measure 25 and not 17.

152

Much of the Subito meno vivo section (m. 39) is in fact an exact transposition of the Impérieux section (m. 17), as illustrated in Ex. 127 below. The shifts to new tonal areas are accomplished in the same way as discussed on pages 146-147.

Op. 65, No. 3 mm. 29-32:

Op. 65, No. 3 mm. 43-46 is the same material, up a fourth:

Ex. 127. Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3. A comparison of two analogous sections The two-measure fragment previously heard in measures 37-38 is used in this section to modulate up a whole-step to the main bass note B (see Ex. 128 below). mm. 51-52 (left). This is a transposition (up a fourth) of mm. 37-38 (right).

Ex. 128. Scriabin Op. 65, No. 3. Another comparison of two analogous sections

153

Note that the underlying upward chromatic motion in the right hand is supported by the slower-moving whole tone bass motion. Each bass note is complemented by a note a tritone away.

In mm. 57-62, at the end of this entire Subito meno vivo section, Scriabin uses a harmonic progression which was not heard previously in the work (Ex. 129). It serves as a transition to the modified return of the A-section, in the G/D-flat “tonic” area.

By m. 62, Scriabin returns to the original “tonic” harmony of the piece: 246

Ex. 129. Op. 65, No. 3, mm-57-62, reduction 246

Note that the pitches in measure 61-62 are exactly the same as in the first measure of the piece, only missing of the chromatic neighboring notes Eb and Bb present in measure 1.

154

Note that the bass is moving down a major third from B to G, a progression which makes sense to the listener because of the B (common-tone) present in both harmonies.

The right hand material at that point features an ascending sequence by whole step. The presence of the major ninths (A-B) in mm. 61-62 (right hand) could be a reference to the Op. 65, No. 1. The harmonic progression with a motion of the root by major third is an influence of Rimsky-Korsakov and by extension, Franz Liszt. One of many examples of a progression where the bass moves by major third in Liszt’s music can be found in his Mephisto Waltz No. 1, S. 514 (1862), as demonstrated in Ex. 130 below.

Free harmonic reduction:

The same progression but reduced to root-position:

Ex. 130. Liszt, Mephisto Waltz No. 1, mm. 750-756

155

Note that in Ex. 130, every chord is connected through a common-tone, which is sometimes spelled enharmonically. Another subtle detail in the Liszt example is the presence of a whole-tone element in the right hand (mm. 750-751: F-sharp, E, D, C), and also in the left hand bass line: E, G-sharp, F-sharp, B-flat (those four notes belong to a whole-tone collection ). This is one of many examples in Scriabin’s late-period music where elements of his harmonic innovations can be traced back to earlier composers.

Returning to the Scriabin Etude Op. 65, No. 3, mm. 63-78 serve as a recapitulation of the “A section”. The only difference is the increased tempo (Prestissimo), and the rhythm.

Ex. 131. The rhythm of the Vivace (m. 1) and the Prestissimo “recapitulation” (m. 63) Interestingly, in first measure of the etude (see example above), Scriabin notates the two-note motive in the left hand as two sixteenth notes, and not as an incomplete triplet. In tempo, this rhythmic subtlety is not audible at all in m. 1 (and is not meant to be). However, this rhythmic figuration becomes prominent in the frenzied return of the opening material in m. 16. This is yet another detail which suggests Scriabin’s meticulous attention to the overall unity of all the various components within his compositions, especially in his late period works.

156

Besides the rhythmic change, the Prestissimo recapitulation is an exact repeat of mm. 1-16. Likewise, the next section in mm. 79-86 is an exact repeat of mm. 17-24. The final 16-measure phrase (starting in m. 87) serves as a coda to the etude. It starts out as a continuation of the Impérieux material, and finishes with an eight-measure reference to the opening of the Etude Op. 65, No. 1, confirming that the Three Etudes Op. 65 were indeed envisioned as a cycle by Scriabin (see Ex. 117).

The ending of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3:

The beginning of the Etude Op. 65, No. 1:

Ex. 117. The ending of the Op. 65/1 is related thematically to the opening of the Op. 65/3

157

Examining Ex. 117, note that while the right hand in the ending passage of the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 is composed of perfect fifths with a bottom octave added, it is nevertheless a clear reference to the beginning of the Etude Op. 65, No. 1. The top line of the right hand in the Etude Op. 65, No. 3 now spans two octaves and is transposed up a half-step. The left hand bass notes, however, are the same exact pitches in both etudes. In the Op. 65, No. 3 ending, the main bass notes expand a full octave down, outlining the diminished chord: C-sharp, A-sharp, G, E. In the opening of the Etude Op. 65, No. 1, the main bass notes (E, C-sharp, A-sharp, G) belong to the same collection.

Tonal Centers of The Etudes Op. 65

Op. 65, No. 1

Op. 65, No. 2

Op. 65, No 3

The same collection is outlined by the main tonal centers of the three etudes in the cycle. This is Scriabin’s only set of etudes with an apparent overarching plan of tonal organization.

158

Chapter 8. Conclusion. The Evolution of Scriabin’s Etudes Throughout his 3 Stylistic Periods

In my discussion of the selected Scriabin etudes, one from each of his three distinct stylistic periods, I traced the evolution of Scriabin’s piano writing and harmonic language. His earliest etudes, like most of his early works, showed the strongest influence of Chopin. This is apparent in the genres in which Scriabin chose to explore during his early period—namely the Etude, Impromptu, Mazurka, Nocturne, Prelude, Polonaise, Waltz, and even the Allegro de Concert—all of these genres were revolutionized by Chopin. Scriabin chose to delay publishing his Op. 8 set until all twelve etudes were in a finished condition (following Chopin’s grouping of his own etudes into opuses of a dozen etudes each) despite Belaieff’s assurance that he would accept as few as six etudes for immediate publication.

The overview of the Etudes Op. 8 also showed the obvious similarities to Chopin in pianistic textures and techniques employed. It is very likely that Scriabin’s love for Chopin’s music was cultivated by another member of the Belaieff circle: Anatoly Liadov (1855-1914). Chopin was one of the first to reinvent the Etude genre and to take it further than merely exploring a developing pianistic mechanics. Likewise, the role of pedaling was extremely important in Chopin’s sound-world. Furthermore, descriptions of Scriabin’s own playing matched those of Chopin’s, for instance, Scriabin’s pedaling produced a remarkable array of different tone qualities, and he had a tremendous range of tone within a pianissimo (see pg. 160).

159

A review of Scriabin’s February 21, 1912 recital in Moscow by Yuly Engel in the Russian Gazette gives us some insight into his own piano playing and how it may be relevant to the execution of his works: Chopin knew better and played only in salons. Perhaps Scriabin does not understand himself… Scriabin’s tender and finely soft piano gifts were barely audible. You never felt that there was any gunpowder, only smoke from a powder flash. Others play his compositions more powerfully, and not just in the sense of force.247 The program that day (which consisted only of his own works), was: 7 selected preludes from Op. 11, selected Etudes from Op. 42 and Op. 8, Third Sonata, Poems Op. 32, Prelude Op. 48, Dance of Languor, Desire Op. 57, Enigma Op. 52, Album leaf Op. 58, Seventh Sonata Op. 64.

This is consistent with earlier accounts of Scriabin’s playing. The New York Times review of his January 3, 1907 recital (quoted by Bowers) mentioned his pianism specifically: As a pianist Mr. Scriabine [sic] has less charm than as a composer. He cannot bring out of the piano all it can offer in the way of richness, beauty, or variety of tone, nor does he always make it sing. A more convincing interpreter than he himself is of his own music could make it sound even more ingratiating than he did.

The (all-Scriabin) program performed that day was: Concert Allegro, Prelude and Nocturne for the left hand, Six Preludes (Op. 11), Three Mazurkas (Op. 3), Sonata No. 3, Two Poems Op. 32, Three Etudes (Op. 8), Waltz (Op. 38). 248 According to Safonov’s remarks c. 1888, the 17-year old Scriabin had already attained the pianist’s chief aim (according to him) “to make the piano sound not like a piano.”

Safonov goes on: “I taught him many things but he had his own rare and exceptional gifts - tonal variety, pedaling refinement. Under his hands, the instrument breathed.” 249

247

Bowers, Biography, 2:233.

Ibid., 2:233.

249 Ibid., 1:144.

248

160

While some sources indicate that Scriabin played little Chopin in his early years, that is inaccurate. One program from Scriabin’s student year January 4, 1891 consisted of: Bach: Prelude and Fugue [unspecified], Mendelssohn Variations Serieuses, Schumann Papillions, Chopin: Nocturne, Etude, Mazurka, Scherzo [unspecified] and the Liszt Piano Concerto No. 1 (orchestral part played on a second piano). 250 It is possible that Scriabin’s piano playing was misunderstood by contemporary critics.

Scriabin himself stated in 1903: “I want the maximum expression within the minimum means”. According to Bowers, one principle obsessed him: “from the greatest delicacy via active flight to the greatest grandiosity”. 251 While the critics often mentioned his narrower dynamic range and weaker tone, perhaps Scriabin, like Chopin, did not seek to evoke orchestral instruments with his piano playing (and writing), and consciously chose to limit his tonal palette. As his piano writing evolved, the textures became more transparent, the lushness of the early and middle period works turned into the crystalline sound-world of his late period compositions.

Descriptions of Chopin’s own playing also reveal many traits attributed to Scriabin’s pianism. Ashton Jonson writes: Halle in his memoirs narrates how he heard Chopin play his Barcarolle at his last public concert in Paris, when, on account of his lack of physical strength owing to his increasing illness, Chopin played it from the point when it demands the utmost energy, in the opposite style of pianissimo, but with such wonderful nuances… 252 This also applied to Scriabin’s use of rubato in performance, which often hid the inherent symmetry of phrasing apparent in his compositions. Bowers writes: “strangely, when Scriabin played his miniatures in private, they never sounded as short as they did in

250

Bowers, Biography, 1:148.

Bowers, Enigma, 55.

252 Ashton Jonson, A Handbook to Chopin’s Works, Books on Demand, 2010, 174.

251

161

concert”.253 The Chopinesque elements did not entirely vanish from Scriabin’s later writing. Scriabin’s contrapuntal treatment of material, the special emphasis on the bass line, and his avoidance of excessive octave doublings (even more apparent in the late period works) are a direct influence of Chopin’s piano writing.

Solo piano was Scriabin’s preferred medium for expression and even his work on larger scale projects (such as the Poem of Ecstasy, Op. 54, the Prometheus, Op. 60 and the unfinished Opera and the Mystery), all inspired stand-alone compositions for solo piano. Chopin’s writing was mostly for the piano solo as well, with the exception of his two piano concertos, and the Cello Sonata in G minor. However, even Scriabin’s earliest etudes often feature complex forms not found in Chopin’s etudes. Scriabin’s use of crossrhythm and his affinity for long pedal tones with different harmonies layered on top already gave his music a distinctly different sonority from that of Chopin. Nevertheless, the main pianistic elements which Scriabin took from Chopin works were: 1. Thumb crossing between hands, often due to the independent treatment of the left and right hands.

2. Widely spaced figurations (especially in the left hand) 3. The demand for extremely subtle pedaling to prolong contrapuntal lines in the bass voice without creating a “muddy” sound by bringing the richly chromatic (and often dissonant) background figuration into the foreground.

4. Writing a pianistic figuration which naturally falls within one specific rhythmic grouping, usually groups two notes, yet indicated as groups of three notes in the score (as observed in Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8 No. 3).

5. A general avoidance of excessive “orchestral” effects and doublings

253

Bowers, Enigma, 55.

162

In addition to those elements, Scriabin’s early period works have some similarity of thematic material in analogous keys. The two B-flat minor etudes in the Op. 8 set, for instance, show evidence of being inspired by the textures, figuration and even thematic material from Chopin’s Piano Sonata No. 2, in the same key.

Scriabin’s middle period works displayed the influence of Wagner and Liszt.

Wagner inspired him to begin work on an opera which was an important precursor to the Mystery of the late period. In the middle period, Scriabin began to blur the distinction between figuration and harmony. While that trend started in the early period, it was in the middle period when Scriabin’s textures had the greatest level of complexity. By the middle period, his exposure to mystic thought spurred him to find a harmonic language that would be able to express mystic ideas, which ultimately inspired the significant shift of style in his late period works.

The middle period compositions, despite all their complex textural figurations, were nevertheless firmly rooted in traditional diatonic harmony. His notebooks from around that time (c. 1904-1905), however, indicate that he had already formed certain ideas (and goals), which would result in his new system of harmony in 1910.

Scriabin first tried out extended non-diatonic progressions in his Piano Sonata No. 5, Op. 53 (1907) and went on to create a harmonic system which was based on the mystic ideas of unity and multiplicity. The orchestral work Prometheus, Op. 60 (1910) was his first published composition to use the acoustic and octatonic modes to generate the harmony.

163

Many of the innovations of Scriabin’s late period works were built on the discoveries of previous Russian composers, namely: Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov, who were in turn developing elements most often found in Liszt’s compositions. While Scriabin’s harmonic system broke away from tonality in comprehensive way not found in earlier Russian works, a similar method of shifting between two non-diatonic modes to establish a tonal center could be found in the works (and sketches) of Rimsky-Korsakov, who was one of his mentors.

The analyses in this dissertation were focused on predominantly two aspects: pianistic texture and harmony. The detailed analyses of the selected etudes from Op. 8, 42 and 65 revealed how Scriabin’s pianistic textures gained in complexity throughout the middle period, yet became more sparse and transparent in the late period. Scriabin’s own writings revealed that he understood the need to temper the advances in harmonic language with a greater focus on the clarity of form and texture.

1. Implications for Further Research One possibility for further research is determining if Scriabin’s Five Preludes, Op. 74, which feature a higher level of dissonance than his preceding works, employ any new compositional techniques not found previously in his output. Chia-Lun Chang’s dissertation on the Preludes Op. 74 presented an in-depth analysis of each prelude but did not venture into a comparison with earlier works.254

254

Chia-Lun Chang , “Five Preludes Opus 74 by Alexander Scriabin: The Mystic Chord as Basis for New Means of Harmonic Progression”, D.M.A. diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 2006.

164

Sabaneyev (quoted by Nicholls), described hearing Scriabin play, in private, fragments of his Mystery at the piano, in 1914: Sitting at the piano… he started to show me the sketches for the [Mystery]. I recall a fairly long episode of ineffable beauty, in the music of which I immediate caught something in common with that Prelude Op. 74, No. 2 which had left such a deep impression in me the previous season [the Prelude Op. 74 were the very last finished compositions by Scriabin]. There were mysterious, lingering harmonies, full of some otherworldly sweetness and sharpness, changing against the background of a static bass in fifths. The impression of this was perhaps stronger even than the previous impressions of the Sixth Sonata, Prometheus and of the Op. 74 Preludes. The newest element in all this music was its having become completely transparent, a disembodied quality, a fading away even of that refined eroticism which had been in his music before. 255 Sabaneyev goes on: [Scriabin spoke] you noticed that it is a little like my prelude [the Op. 74, No. 4].

As a matter of fact, that are one and the same… but here it is developed more.

This ecstasy, is her [sic], Death, universal destruction, reunification. In these outlines I still have a lot which is common with the fourth prelude. 256 Based on Sabaneyev’s account, Scriabin’s compositional style became even more transparent in the last year of his life. This fits in with the trend observed in the comparison of selected Etudes Op. 8, 42 and 65.

The only surviving remnants of the Mystery were 30 unedited pages of poetic text and 54 pages (sketches) of music. In 1970, the composer Alexander Nemtin (1936-1999) fleshed out the sketches that Scriabin left behind, incorporating Scriabin’s existing published works (including the Five Preludes Op. 74) into a three-hour work for orchestra and chorus.257 A detailed analysis of the score, sketches and Nemtin’s completed version is very much needed for a more complete understanding of Scriabin’s late style and how it further evolved in the last year of his life.

255

Nicholls, Notebooks, 221-222.

Ibid., 223 257 Ballard, Companion, 26.

256

165

The complete surviving sketches to the Mystery are not readily available, and only Nemtin’s reworking has been published. The aforementioned Prelude Op. 74, No. 4 (Ex. 118) suggests that Scriabin was indeed steadily progressing towards a more ascetic pianistic texture.

Ex. 118. Scriabin Prelude Op. 74, No. 4 However, the harmonic language appears to have a greater degree of chromaticism and contrapuntal activity. An in-depth study on the Preludes Op. 74 which compares them with the surviving Mystery sketches as well as earlier works in Scriabin’s output is very much needed.

Another important topic for further research is the evolution of Scriabin’s treatment of thematic material in his Sonatas across the three stylistic periods. The progression towards the simplification of thematic material has been observed to some extent in the Etudes Op. 65. Undoubtedly, Scriabin’s theme-constructions within largerscale forms evolved along with his harmonic language. This dissertation hopefully provides many useful tools for future analysis and research, especially in the realm of Scriabin’s late period works.

166

Selected Bibliography

Anderson, Brett. "An Integrated Analysis of Alexander Scriabin's Sixth and Eighth Sonatas." D.M.A. diss., University of Oregon, 1991.

Antokoletz, Elliott and Wheeldon, Marianne. Rethinking Debussy. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Arnold, Ben. The Liszt Companion. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002.

Baker, James. "Alexander Scriabin: The Tradition from Tonality to Atonality." Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1977.

Baker, James. "Scriabin's Implicit Tonality." Music Theory Spectrum 2 (Spring, 1980): 1-18. _________. The Music of Alexander Scriabin. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1986.

Ballard, Lincoln. The Alexander Scriabin Companion: History, Performance, and Lore.

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017.

Bellman, Jonathan D. Chopin’s Polish Ballade: Op. 38 as a Narrative of National Martyrdom. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Bertensson, Sergei. Sergei Rachmaninoff: a Lifetime in Music. Indiana University Press, 2001.

Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna. The Secret Doctrine. Chicago, 1897.

Bowen, José Antonio. The Cambridge Art to Conducting. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Bowers, Faubion. Scriabin, a Biography. New York. Dover, 1996. ________. The New Scriabin; Enigma and Answers. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973.

Braun, Deniz Lucien. “Ecstatic Consonance: A Third Aesthetic in Scriabin's Late Piano Works”. M.A. Thesis., Monash University, 2002.

Bruhn, Siglind. Voicing the Ineffable: Musical Representations of Religious Experience.

Pendragon Press, 2002.

Callender, Clifton. “Voice-Leading Parsimony in the Music of Alexander Scriabin”.

Journal of Music Theory 42/2 (Autumn 1998): 219-33.

167

Campen, Cretien van. The Hidden Sense: Synesthesia in Art and Science. MIT Press, 2010.

Carlson, Maria. "Fashionable Occultism: The Theosophical World of Silver Age Russia."

Quest 99. 2 (Spring 2011): 50-57.

Carr, Anne E. Review of Greene, Dana. Evelyn Underhill: Artist of the Infinite Life.

New York, 1990. http://merton.org/ITMS/Annual/4/CarrRevUnderhill298-300.pdf Accessed February 23, 2020.

Cernadas, Nuno. “Alexander Scriabin: Aesthetic Development through Selected Piano Works” Master’s Thesis, Hochschule für Musik Freiburg, 2013.

Chang, Chia-Lun. “Five Preludes Opus 74 by Alexander Scriabin: The Mystic Chord as Basis for New Means of Harmonic Progression”. D.M.A. diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 2006.

Chajes, Julie. Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky's Theosophy.

Oxford University Press, 2019.

Cheong, Wai-Ling. "The Late Scriabin: Pitch Organisation [sic] and Form in the Works of 1910-14." Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1991.

Couling, Della. Ferruccio Busoni: "A Musical Ishmael". Scarecrow Press. 2005.

Cooper, John Michael. Historical Dictionary of Romantic Music. Scarecrow Press. 2013.

Downes, Stephen. Music and Decadence in European Modernism: The Case of Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Dubal, David. Evenings with Horowitz: A Personal Portrait. Amadeus Press, 2004.

Elder, R. Bruce. Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 2010.

Feinberg, Samuil. Pianizm kak iskusstvo [Pianism as Art] Moscow: Muzyka, 1965.

Forman, Lana. “The Positivistic Mysticism of Alexander Scriabin”. Master’s Thesis, York University, Toronto, 2017.

Gawboy, Anna. “Alexander Scriabin’s Theurgy in Blue: Esotericism and the Analysis of Prometheus: Poem of Fire, op. 60.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2010.

168

Grillaert, Nel. What the God-seekers Found in Nietzsche: The Reception of Neitzche's Übermensch by the Philosophers of the Russian Religious Renaissance. Rodopi, 2008.

Grove, George. A dictionary of music and musicians. New York, Macmillan, 1910.

Hull, Arthur Eaglefield. A Great Russian Tone-Poet, Scriabin. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1916.

Hull, Arthur Eaglefield. “The Pianoforte Sonatas of Scriabin (continued)”, The Musical Times Vol. 57, No. 886, Dec 1, 1916.

Jaffé, Daniel. Historical Dictionary of Russian Music. The Scarecrow Press. 2012.

Jonson, Ashton. A Handbook to Chopin’s Works. Books on Demand, 2010.

Kim, Min Joung. “The Chopin Etudes: A Study Guide for teaching and learning opus 10 and opus 25”. DMA diss. University of North Texas. December 2011.

Klein, Andreas. “The Chopin Etudes: An Indispensable Pedagogical Tool for Developing Piano Technique”. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1989.

Kregor, Jonathan. Liszt as Transcriber. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Lamm, Julia A. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Christian Mysticism.

John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

Leikin, Anatole. The Performing Style of Alexander Scriabin. University of California.

Ashgate Publishing, 2011.

Macdonald, Hugh. Skryabin. London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Maes, Francis. A History of Russian Music: From Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar. Translated

by Arnold J. Pomerans and Erica Pomerans. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Meeks, John Samuel. "Aspects of Stylistic Evolution in Scriabin's Piano Preludes."

D.M.A diss., Peabody Conservatory of Music, 1975.

Mitchell, Rebecca. Nietzsche's Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire. Yale University Press, 2016.

169

Morrison, Simon. Russian Opera and the Symbolist Movement. University of California Press, 2002. ______________. “Skryabin and the Impossible”. Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp.283-330.

Myers, Charles S. “Two Cases of Synaesthesia”. The British Journal of Psychology, Volume 7, 1914-1915.

Nicholls, Simon. The Notebooks of Alexander Skryabin. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Perle, George. "Scriabin's Self-Analyses." Music Analysis 3/2 (July 1984): 101-22.

Peterson, Ronald E. A History of Russian Symbolism. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1993.

Pinnix, David Clemmons. "Evolution of Stylistic Elements in Selected Solo Piano Works

by Scriabin." D.M.A. diss., University of Rochester, 1969.

Pratt, Waldo Selden. Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Volume 4. Macmillan, 1909.

Randlett, Samuel L. "The Nature and Development of Scriabin's Piano Vocabulary."

D.M.A. diss., Northwestern University, 1966.

Reise, Jay. "Late Skriabin: Some Principles Behind the Style." 19th-Century Music 6/3 (Spring 1983): 220-31.

Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolai. Letoppis Moyey Muzykalnoy Zhizni (St. Petersburg, 1909), published in English as My Musical Life. New York: Knopf, 1925, 3rd ed. 1942.

Roberts, Peter Deane. Modernism in Russian Piano Music: Skriabin, Prokofiev, and their Russian Contemporaries. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993.

Ronald E. Peterson. A History of Russian Symbolism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1993.

Russ, Michael. Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Sabaneyev, Leonid. Scriabin and the Principles Behind his Works [Russian], Petrograd, 1916. ____________. Vospominaniya o Skryabine [Reminiscences of Scriabin], Moscow 1925.

170

Sabbagh, Peter. The Development of Harmony in Scriabin's Works. U.S.A: UniversalPublishers, 2003.

Samson, Jim. The Cambridge Companion to Chopin. Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Schloezer, Boris de. Scriabin: Artist and Mystic. Translated from Russian by Nicolas Slonimsky. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.

Sitsky, Larry. Music of the Repressed Russian Avant-Garde, 1900-1929. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Stace, Walter T. The Teachings of the Mystics. New American Library. 1960.

Sukhina, Nataliya. “Alexander Scriabin (1871–1915): Piano Miniature as Chronicle of His Creative Evolution - Complexity of Interpretive Approach and Its Implications.”

D.M.A. diss., University of North Texas, 2008.

Swan, Alfred J. Scriabin. London, 1923. Reprint, New York: Da Capo Press, 1969.

Taruskin, Richard. Mussorgsky: Eight Essays and an Epilogue. Princeton University Press, 1997. _______________. Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions, Volume One. University of California Press, 2016.

Tassie, Gregor. Yevgeny Mravinsky: The Noble Conductor. Scarecrow Press, 2005.

Towsend, Justin. “Scriabin and the Possible”. Journal Society of Music Theory.

Volume 18, No. 2, June 2012.

Underhill, Evelyn. Mysticism. A Study in Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness. Dover Publications, New York (2002). Republication of the work originally published in 1911 and 1930.

Wadlow, René. "Alexander Scriabin: Music of Ecstasy and Light" Quest 104.1 (Winter 2016).

Wai-Ling, Cheong. "Orthography in Scriabin's Late Works." Music Analysis 12/1 (March 1993): 47-69. ____________. "Scriabin's Octatonic Sonata." Journal of the Royal Musical Association 121/2 (1996): 206-28.

Walker, Matthew Robert. Rachmaninoff: The Illustrated Lives of the Great Composers.

Omnibus Press, 2011.

171

Walsh, Stephen. Stravinsky: A Creative Spring: Russia and France, 1882-1934.

University of California Press, 2003.

Wetzel, Don Louis. “Scriabin in Russian musicology and its background in Russian intellectual history.” PhD Diss. Thornton School of Music, 2009.

Whitehead, Laura Lynn. “Transcendent Sounds: The Early Piano Music of Alexander Scriabin”. Master’s Thesis, University of Victoria, 2008.

Woolsey, Timothy Dwight. Organizational Principles in Piano Sonatas of Alexander Scriabin. Austin, TX, University of Texas at Austin Press: 1977.

Yun, Elise. Alexander Scriabin's Late Piano Poems: Language, Thought and Performance. New York University Press, 1998.

172

Mikhail Kaykov 1990 1994 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2011 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Born in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Started taking piano lessons.

First piano recital.

Moved to New York City.

Admitted to the Juilliard School Precollege program.

Winner Third Annual People’s Piano Competition at Juilliard.

First-Prize Winner of the Young Pianist’s Piano Competition of New Jersey.

Part of a gala performance in Carnegie Hall (Weill Recital Hall).

Performed with Eastern Connecticut Symphony Orchestra.

Quarter-Finalist, 9th International Franz Liszt Piano Competition (Netherlands).

BM (with honors) Mannes College of Music (studied with Jerome Rose).

MM Juilliard School (studied with Jerome Lowenthal).

Guest Piano Faculty at the First Shengyue Sino-American International Music Summer Camp in August 2016 (Asia Pacific Foundation of America).

Joined the piano faculty of the Harlem School of the Arts (NYC).

Recital at Klavierhaus Steingraeber (Bayreuth) and Liszt CD release.

Invited to join the Mason Gross (Rutgers University) Extension Division faculty.

DMA Manhattan School of Music.