# Balakirev - A forgotten genius



## aarandir (Sep 13, 2011)

I recently just graduated from Goldsmiths University in London, UK (I have just re-read by post and It comes across like an essay, sorry about that, but keep at it I hope you will find it interesting if not informative) a few of you may have heard of it, it has a famous-ish research department on Russian music and many eccentric rolleyes: drunk...) Russian lecturers who were brilliant! Anyway, needless to say, Russian music was very much the forte in this Uni and I'm so glad I went there because I was exposed to so much Russian music that, had I not attended, I may never have had the pleasure to listen to. 

I wanted to share some of my discovers and get a debate/discussion going on 19th century Russian music. One of the essays I wrote was on how Glinka was NOT the true father of Russian music - very controversial statement I know - but have a read of my essay and I'm sure I may somewhat sway you (if you don't know much about Russian music, Glinka is almost universally regarded as the father of Russian music and me saying he isn't is analogous to me saying Shakespeare isn't the father of English literature) I cited Mily Balakirev as more of an influence on later Russian music than Glinka.

"Finally, he gets to the point." When most of you hear the name Balakirev, you probably always think of the piano piece 'Islamey'. Balakirev is by no means a one-hit-wonder; he composed many great pieces of music, which sound fantastic, and which once analyse reveal his influence on the 'Mighty Handful'. Anyway get yourselves a Spotify account and listen to the following:

'Tamara' a symphonic poem, listen to the version by the Russian State Symphony Orchestra which is 22'25'' long. I know its a long piece of music but turn the volume up, pour yourself a whisky and close your eyes and enjoy this. Almost immediately you will hear 'Scheherazade' by Rimsky-Korsakov, going on you will hear other similarities to other Russian composers. This is a truly marvellous piece of music which epitomises the 'orientalism' that was later pursued by Rimsky-Korsakov and co. 

'Georgian Song' or 'Ne poi krasavitsa' which is a short song by Balakirev. Search for "Georgian Song Nicolai Gedda" on Spotify to find the recording, unfortunately the artist is listed as the tenor singing not the composer. The same words are also set by Rachmaninoff in his op. 4 no. 4 known also as 'Ne poi krasavitsa' or 'Song of Grusia' you can find a YouTube recording of Clara Rockmore playing this on theremin. Anyway, the Balakirev version, although composed earlier sounds much later, almost 20th Century due to the harmony being moulded to fit the melody rather than the other way round, this gives it a very Georgian/Persian feel. Whereas the Rachmaninoff version is much more 'conventional'. 

Two little gems for you to listen to, feedback, thoughts? Ohh if you want to read my essay PM me your email and I'll email you it. 

Thanks guys, happy listening!


----------



## aarandir (Sep 13, 2011)

If you have trouble finding the recordings or don't have/want to get a spotify account, let me know I'll attach the mp3s to my post.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hi, welcome to talkclassical! I still haven't listened to Tamara, which I hear is a great piece, but that doesn't prevent me from being a huge fan of Balakirev, and I believe you are correct, I would go so far as to say that Balakirev is the first composer with a truly russian sound. He is the original Russian in my book, his melodies are passionate and speak directly to the heart as a Russian should! I think part of his neglect is due to his minimal output, his influence at the beginning of the Russian movement in music was profound but I think he got weirded out with Christian thinking and quit composing for nearly 30 years and worked at the Railroad station? And then he came back and composed some of his best works but by that time he was too old fashioned. 

I really like his second piano sonata and his three late Mazurkas especially. 

I don't have a spotify, should I get one?

Edit, actually it seems that I exaggerated the duration of his breakdown. But some of his works did take a long time to complete that perhaps would have had their heyday in the 1860s.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

*"One of the essays I wrote was on how Glinka was NOT the true father of Russian music"*

You might consider starting a blog on this site to post your essays. This feature is available to all TC members.

Most of what I know about Balakirev I learned when he was BBC Radio 3's featured composer about six months ago. They pronounced his name "Ba-LAK-ir-ev," but I thought that Russian speakers tended to put a more even emphasis on the syllables.

I have _Tamara_--I'll have to give it another listen--and several other pieces by him. Also enough Glinka to compare and contrast, to see whether or not I agree with you.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> ... I think he got weirded out with Christian thinking...


I wouldn't exactly call the thinking that weirded him out 'Christian'.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I think--recalling from the BBC 3 broadcasts that I heard, so I could be wrong--that he became a vegetarian, which was an odd idea in Russia at the time, where if you could afford to buy meat, you bought it and ate it. Rimsky-Korsakov remarked, in his memoirs, upon Balakirev's "fondness for beasts"--reluctance to kill any animal, including spiders and insects, at this stage of his life.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

aarandir said:


> (if you don't know much about Russian music, Glinka is almost universally regarded as the father of Russian music and me saying he isn't is analogous to me saying Shakespeare isn't the father of English literature)


Well seeing as there was Chaucer well before Shakespeare...


----------



## aarandir (Sep 13, 2011)

@ clavichorder Thanks for the message  Spotify used to be great free, but now you can only listen the same track only 5 times, beyond that you have to purchase a subscription, otherwise its not that bad in the sense it gives you access to a gigantic library of music for free (albeit with loud annoying 30 sec ads at the end a track and the fact that you can only listen to it 5 times).

You are right, he did become somewhat of a hermit, musically, and then finalised pieces he had started much earlier. For example the draft to Tamara was shown to the Mighty Handful when he first started it in the late 1860's I think, which is where Rimsky-Korsakov got some of the ideas for Scheherazade from. Honestly the opening clarinet flourish from Tamara is almost identical to the solo violin theme from Scheherazade.

I agree I love his Mazurkas, you should listen to the second movement of his Sonata in B flat, its a great little Mazurka. 

@Fsharpmajor Thank you for the suggestion, I will do! I am quite proud of that essay because I got the highest mark for in the class and indeed the history of that course (in that lecturers memory anyway). 

Damn, I missed the Balakirev programmes on BBC R3, perhaps they'll rebroadcast them? 

Hehe please do, I hope you'll find that the orientalism in Balakirev is a lot more adventurous than that in Glinka's music. 

I'll be posting my essay on the blog soon


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The Balakirev symphony no 1 in C is one of the greatest symphonies you've never heard.
When you hear it, you'll ask yourself, where has this piece been all my life ?
It's chock full of memorable themes and melodic invention, which alternate the feeling of Russian fokl music and the exotic non-russian parts of the former Soviet Union.
The centennial of Balakirev's death was last year, and it passed with almost no notice !
What a shame ! There have been a number of recordings, which may or may not be available. I got to know it many years ago on LP with the classic version with Sir Thomas Beecham and the Royal Philhamronic on EMI. There are others by Yevgeny Svetlanov, Karajan, etc. I have the Naxos CD with the not very well known but excellent Russian conductor Igor Golovschin , who unfortunately died before he achieved a big reputation,only about 40 or so. Why don't more conductors program this symphony live ? Audiences would love it ! It would be a welcome change fropm the same old Tchaikovsky. (not that I don't love his music, but it's been so over exposed.) Check arkivmusic.com , by far the best website for getting hard-to-find classical CDs. And their overall selection is fantastic .


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Klavierspieler said:


> I wouldn't exactly call the thinking that weirded him out 'Christian'.


It is true that what he experienced was likely a stress related nervous breakdown and only turned to highly conservative christian values as a result of his breakdown. Maybe he didn't even do that? Maybe I'm mixing him up with Tolstoy...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Well seeing as there was Chaucer well before Shakespeare...


According to a book I read on the evolution of the English language, there was a guy well before Chaucer. His writing wasn't in East Anglian, but it was English of a sort. Liked alliteration, as I recall.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I had no idea that Balakirev was forgotten.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I had an embarrassing moment with Balakirev a long while back, where I heard a gorgeous Russian orchestral piece on the radio, and thought, "that has to be Glazunov!" Well, it was actually Balakirev, I don't even remember the work. But I felt quite ashamed.

I'm a fan of Balakirev, although I haven't heard much by him. Islamey is great, but I'm quite aware he did much more. He was extremely important in the Russian classical music world.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I had no idea that Balakirev was forgotten.


What's a Ba... Bal... Balackeriv?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've heard quite a bit of his stuff on radio over the years, it's good, but to my ears his_ Islamey_ is the one I think is most cohesive & innovative (eg. in terms of how he writes so challengingly and colourfully for the piano in that). Even some of the greatest virtuosos balk at playing it live, the great Georges Cziffra was one who made it his calling card when he settled in the West in the 1950's.

I don't really think Balakirev was "greater" than Glinka. Both were kind of synthesists of what was going on in & outside of Russia, traditional things and newer trends. This was characteristic of regions whose native classical tradition started relatively late in the piece. They were building up classical music in Russia - or the Russian Empire - from the ground up. I think the most significant composer around that time/generation (of "The Five") was Mussorgsky, what he was doing had little or no precedent and was wholly unique. Balakirev was more of a figurehead and spokesperson for the group, imho.

There was also a split in Russia between those more inclined to "nationalism" and those who were more cosmopolitan. The latter were guys like Tchaikovsky, Glazunov, maybe even Scriabin. Rimsky-Korsakov, though a part of "The Five," probably had the most initial impact on music outside of Russia (esp. in terms of his books on orchestration), but in more recent decades the very significant place of Mussorgsky is being reassessed, he's no longer seen as second fiddle to Rimsky Korsakov...


----------



## aarandir (Sep 13, 2011)

Sid - Read my essay (if you have time) I address most of the issues you mentioned in your post. I do agree about Mussorgsky being unique, although his realism did actually have precedents, such as the, now relatively unknown composer, Alexander Dargomyzhsky.

Let me know what you think of my argument  It got a high first, not sure what that is in terms of American grades but its 85%.

I have also attached Balakirev's 'Georgian Song' (ne poi, krasavitsa) since recordings of it are very hard to come by.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> According to a book I read on the evolution of the English language, there was a guy well before Chaucer. His writing wasn't in East Anglian, but it was English of a sort. Liked alliteration, as I recall.


Aye, indeed - I wasn't suggesting Chaucer was the first, just that there are just as big literary names before Shakespeare. Perhaps you're thinking of Cynewulf?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Aye, indeed - I wasn't suggesting Chaucer was the first, just that there are just as big literary names before Shakespeare. Perhaps you're thinking of Cynewulf?


Author unknown. Four poems in the Thornton Manuscript, written in the Northwest Midlands form of English, one of which poems is _The Pearl _. My book reproduces one stanza, followed by a translation into modern English. The translation is necessary. In fact the translation, written in British English sometime before 1928, has a few words I don't recognize.

Now that I have the book in hand, I see that there is no date given for the Thornton Manuscript. Maybe it doesn't much predate Chaucer.

I have another book about this somewhere...


----------



## Terrapin (Apr 15, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Rimsky-Korsakov remarked, in his memoirs, upon Balakirev's "fondness for beasts"--reluctance to kill any animal, including spiders and insects, at this stage of his life.


I read that a couple of times thinking what's unusual about that before noticing that the quote from Rimsky doesn't have an "r" in the last word.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

aarandir said:


> Sid - Read my essay (if you have time) I address most of the issues you mentioned in your post.


Okay thanks, I will print it out & read it asap.



> ...I do agree about Mussorgsky being unique, although his realism did actually have precedents, such as the, now relatively unknown composer, Alexander Dargomyzhsky.


Yes, I've read about the latter, but not heard his music. They were both steering opera towards more of a "Russian" sound/feel, & I also know that how they dealt with the text (the Russian language) was different to guys like Glinka (& Tchaikovsky, etc.).



> Let me know what you think of my argument...


Will do!...


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I think Balakirev was a dictator...he said to every composer of the mighty five what they had to do. Rimsky got tired and quit the group because of him. He composed very little, he was a master at the piano. I have his piano pieces (6 CD, I think) and they're awesome. He didn't compose much but talked too much...HE forced every member to consider folkloric music respecting Glinka's principles...I believe he didn't like Tchaikovsky very much...Rimsky respected him (Piotr) deeply though. His symphonies are just ok...He wasn't (IMHO) a very innovator.

Martin (not so sure about what I'm saying)


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

I'm not the kind of person who starts bumping dead topics, but just to keep it in line with my experience and to avoid creating a new topic, I will post here.

Balakirev certainly was a great composer. He was an active member of the Mighty Handful, and, while being unknown nowadays, he was quite famous during his lifetime (as usual with most composers). Anyway, I've just listened (listened: actively, not heard, but listened, that's it, interactively, analytically, responsively, imaginatively, creatively, critically, enjoyably LISTENED - NOT merely heard) to Balakirev's 1st Symphony in C Major and I was fairly surprised by it. I already knew that he was a very good composer, but even though he lies behind Borodin, this symphony was rather impressive. In fact, I was utterly marveled by the third movement: so sweet, dense, emotive, sensational. Certainly the best movement of the symphony, almost at the same level as the third movement of Borodin's 2nd Symphony. The structure was pretty much the same as Borodin's 2nd Symphony, probably because they actually organised the structure for the Russian symphony. Even though there are significant flaws in the symphony, there are at least a couple of points where his symphony is better than that of his contemporaries (of the same musical current, it is quite ridiculous to compare it to other musical styles): even if it lacks in colour combinations (timbre), he manages to use motives and ideas in a much more developed way than Borodin, for example (sorry if I compare him to Borodin constantly, he is the best example to contrast). Even though Balakirev lacks Borodin's (I know...) rhythmic control, the way he develops different ideas is notable, bearing in mind that the actual symphonic master of the Mighty Handful was Borodin and not him.

If you have a moment, please listen to it... at least the third movement. If you have a LONG moment I think that you'll manage to listen to it completely. That is, to LISTEN to it. No need to get over it again  hahaha
I'm looking forward to knowing your thoughts about it.

EDIT: My TC! That was a long post. Maybe worth a topic by itself...?


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2013)

Ukko said:


> I had no idea that Balakirev was forgotten.


I had no idea, either.

I've never forgotten him, anyway.

Course, I never knew the author of Beowulf was forgotten, either. No, wait. I DID know that. Yes.

William Langland. It's William Langland who's not been forgotten. Not all that well remembered, but....


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2013)

Terrapin said:


> I read that a couple of times thinking what's unusual about that before noticing that the quote from Rimsky doesn't have an "r" in the last word.


You may be a junior member, but you've already made your mark.

With your sense of humor, we should get along just fine.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I've heard quite a bit of his stuff on radio over the years, it's good, but to my ears his_ Islamey_ is the one I think is most cohesive & innovative (eg. in terms of how he writes so challengingly and colourfully for the piano in that). Even some of the greatest virtuosos balk at playing it live, the great Georges Cziffra was one who made it his calling card when he settled in the West in the 1950's.
> 
> I don't really think Balakirev was "greater" than Glinka. Both were kind of synthesists of what was going on in & outside of Russia, traditional things and newer trends. This was characteristic of regions whose native classical tradition started relatively late in the piece. They were building up classical music in Russia - or the Russian Empire - from the ground up. I think the most significant composer around that time/generation (of "The Five") was Mussorgsky, what he was doing had little or no precedent and was wholly unique. Balakirev was more of a figurehead and spokesperson for the group, imho.
> 
> There was also a split in Russia between those more inclined to "nationalism" and those who were more cosmopolitan. The latter were guys like Tchaikovsky, Glazunov, maybe even Scriabin. Rimsky-Korsakov, though a part of "The Five," probably had the most initial impact on music outside of Russia (esp. in terms of his books on orchestration), but in more recent decades the very significant place of Mussorgsky is being reassessed, he's no longer seen as second fiddle to Rimsky Korsakov...


Alexander Dargomyzhsky was also decisive as the link between Glinka and the Russian Five, Anton Rubinstein, and Tchaikovsky. Mussorgsky learned much from him.


----------

